IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 4768  OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15483/2007]

RAM NARESH ... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:

RAMAVTAR AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.7.2007 passed

by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second

Appeal No. 126/1987 allowing the second appeal filed by the respondents herein from

a judgment and decree dated 2.1.1987 passed by the District Judge, Panna, allowing

an appeal  preferred  by  the  appellant  from a  judgment  and  decree  passed  by  the

learned Civil Judge, Class II, Panna, dated 3.5.1983.  

In view of the order proposed to be passed by us, it is not necessary to state

the fact of the matter in details.  Suffice it to say that the contention of the parties

centred round proof  of  execution of  a  Will  by one Mst.  Katra Wali,  on  or about

31.10.1972.  

-2-

A contention has also been raised by the respondents that the appellant had

committed fraud on the testatrix.  Opining that the said Will  is  an outcome of  the

fraud on the part of the appellant, the said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial

Judge.  However, the first appeal preferred thereagainst was allowed.  

The High Court while entertaining the second appeal at the instance of the

respondents, formulated the following substantial question of law:   

“Whether  the  lower  appellant  Court  was  justified  in  law  in

reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court.”  

The High Court in its judgment impugned before us, inter alia, arrived at the

following findings:  

“Nowhere in  their  evidence it  has  come that  the testator put  her

thumb impression in their presence and they put their signature and

thumb impression in presence of the testator.”   

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that,

apart from the fact that the purported substantial question of law framed does not

satisfy the test laid down under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High

Court appears to have committed a manifest error in its approach in entering into the

merit of the matter.

-3-

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, when questioned,

submitted that a large number of substantial questions of law had been raised before

the High Court which, however, had not been formulated.

Be that as it may, in view of  our finding aforementioned that the question

formulated ex facie was not a substantial  question of law within the meaning of the

provisions  of  sub-section  (4)  of  Section  100  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  the

impugned judgment cannot be sustained.  It is set aside accordingly and the matter is

remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh.

The High Court may formulate such substantial  question of  law as in its

opinion arises in the matter.

The High Court is requested to consider the desirability of hearing out the

matter as expeditiously as possible.     

The appeal is allowed. No costs.  

..........................J (S.B. SINHA)

..........................J   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)    NEW DELHI, AUGUST 1, 2008.