Reinforcing the mandatory procedure under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot decide a second appeal on merits without first framing substantial questions of law. Setting aside a Kerala High Court judgment in a long-running property dispute, the Court ruled that failure to follow this statutory requirement renders the judgment legally unsustainable.
The Bench also clarified that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to registered sale deeds because the law does not require such documents to be attested.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a suit filed over ownership and possession of a 13-cent property. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title, recovery of possession of a portion of the land, and cancellation of a sale deed executed in 1996, alleging that the property had already been transferred through an earlier registered sale deed in 1978.
The trial court accepted the plaintiffs' case, declared the later sale deed void, recognised the plaintiffs' title, directed restoration of possession, and ordered removal of structures raised by the defendants.
However, the first appellate court reversed the decree, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfactorily prove execution of the 1978 sale deed and questioning the identification of the suit property.
The Kerala High Court later restored the trial court's decree in a second appeal, interpreting the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act in favour of the plaintiffs. That decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court first examined whether the High Court could decide the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
"The legal position is no more res integra... the Court shall formulate substantial question(s) of law, and the said procedure is mandatory," the Bench observed.
Answering in the negative, the Bench noted that the statutory requirement is mandatory and cannot be bypassed.
The Court found that although the memorandum of second appeal contained proposed substantial questions of law, the High Court neither formally framed them nor decided the appeal on that basis before restoring the trial court's decree.
The Bench said this procedural lapse alone was sufficient to invalidate the High Court's judgment.
Clarification on Section 68 of the Evidence Act
The Supreme Court also addressed what it described as two "egregious errors" in the High Court's interpretation of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
According to the High Court, the proviso to Section 68 would apply only if the person who executed the document specifically denied its execution through a separate legal proceeding rather than merely in a written statement.
The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning.
It held that the High Court should not have relied on Section 68 at all because the provision applies only to documents that are legally required to be attested. A registered sale deed does not fall within that category.
"The High Court committed an error in understanding the true purport of the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act," the Bench said
Explaining the legal position, the Court observed that sale deeds are governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires registration but does not require attestation by witnesses as a condition of validity. Consequently, Section 68, which governs proof of documents required by law to be attested, has no application to such sale deeds.
The Court further clarified that the proviso to Section 68 cannot be interpreted independently of the main provision and cannot be expanded to cover documents outside its scope.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment and remitted the second appeal for fresh consideration.
The Court directed the High Court to hear the matter afresh after first formulating substantial questions of law, as required under Section 100 CPC, and dispose of the appeal within three months from receipt of the Supreme Court's order. It also directed the High Court to inform the Supreme Court after the matter is decided.
Case Details:
Case Title: R. Veronica & Anr. vs. Rudrayani Devaki (D) Through LRs. S. Satha Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6526 of 2024 (@ SLP (C) No. 27109 of 2018)
Judge: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
Decision Date: 14 July 2026
