Court Upholds Concurrent Findings; Emphasizes Non-Interference in Absence of Substantial Legal Issues
Ranchi, June 11, 2026 - In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the Second Appeal No. 136 of 2026 filed by Ram Kishun Mahto and another against Md. Salim Khan and others, confirming the decisions of both the trial and appellate courts. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, who presided over the case, emphasized that the appeal failed to present any substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite for admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The origins of the case lie in a dispute over a land deed (Sale Deed No. 5607 dated November 14, 1945) involving approximately 15.60 acres in Ranchi. The trial court had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Md. Salim Khan, confirming the legality and possession of the land. The appellants, Ram Kishun Mahto and others, challenged this decision, arguing procedural irregularities and erroneous factual determinations. However, both the trial and appellate courts found no merit in these assertions, particularly noting the proper service of notices to the defendants, which they failed to contest timely.
Central to the High Court's decision was the principle that a second appeal is only permissible on grounds of substantial legal questions. The court clarified that it is not within its purview to re-evaluate evidence unless such a question is evident. Given the concurrent factual findings by the lower courts, the High Court found no reason to disturb the decisions.
Justice Dwivedi further elaborated on the issue of an ex-parte decree, stating that such a decree can only be set aside if the defendants convincingly demonstrate either non-service of summons or a legitimate cause for their absence. The court found that the appellants were adequately notified but chose not to participate in the proceedings, undermining their argument.
Additionally, the court addressed the appellants' claims regarding the disputed plot number, confirming that the evidence presented was insufficient to alter the established facts. The appellants failed to provide credible additional evidence or rectify discrepancies in their documentation, leading the court to uphold the prior judgments.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court's dismissal of the appeal reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to procedural integrity and the necessity of substantial legal grounds for appellate intervention. This judgment underscores the judiciary's reluctance to interfere with well-founded factual determinations by lower courts in the absence of compelling legal questions.
Bottom line:-
Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot be admitted unless it involves a substantial question of law. High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence when there are concurrent findings of fact by both the trial court and appellate court.
Statutory provision(s): Section 100 CPC, Order IX Rule 13 CPC
Ram Kishun Mahto v. Md. Salim Khan, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2925952
