Second Appeal under CPC

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti clarified that High Courts must record strong and convincing reasons while framing an additional substantial question of law under Section 100(5) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in second appeals, emphasizing that such power is to be used only in exceptional cases. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph And Others (2025). 

What was the Background of C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph and Others (2025)? 

• This case involves a family property dispute arising from a joint will be executed by an elderly couple, CR Pius and Philomina Pius, who owned property in Elamkulam village, Ernakulam District, Kerala. 
• CR Pius and Philomina Pius were the absolute owners of approximately 11 cents of land across two survey numbers. The couple had eight children: CP Joseph, CP Francis (the appellant), CP Raphael, CP George, CP Sebastian, three daughters (including Maria who was deceased), and others including Desty Thomas and Clara Jacob. 
• On 15th December 1999, Philomina Pius executed a registered settlement deed transferring 4 cents of land to their son CP Sebastian, retaining 3.235 cents for herself. This settlement was reportedly made to facilitate Sebastian's housing needs. 
• On 27th January 2003, CR Pius and Philomina Pius executed a registered joint will. The will contained several key provisions: 
  • All daughters had been given their shares through marriage settlements 
  • CP Sebastian had already received 4 cents through the 1999 settlement deed 
  • The remaining properties would be bequeathed to CP Francis (the appellant) 
  • CP Francis was obligated to pay specific monetary amounts to his siblings within five years of both parents' deaths (ranging from ₹50,000 to ₹1,00,000 per sibling) 
  • If these payments were not made, the siblings could create a charge on the properties 
•  The will was attested by two witnesses: Ponsy (wife of CP Francis, the beneficiary) and Antony (husband of one of the defendants). This attestation arrangement would later become central to the legal proceedings. 
• CR Pius died on 24th November 2004, and Philomina Pius died on 27th November 2008. Following their deaths, CP Francis took possession of the properties as per the will. 
• Five of the siblings (respondents 1-5) filed a suit in 2009 seeking partition of the properties into eight equal shares, challenging the validity of the will. They alleged that: 
  • Their father suffered from various ailments including cerebral palsy and Parkinson's disease, rendering him mentally incapable 
  • The will was executed through fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence 
  • Their parents died intestate, entitling all children to equal shares 
  • The will was forged by CP Francis and the attesting witnesses 
• The case proceeded through three levels of courts with the primary issues being whether the will was valid and genuine, and whether the properties were partible among all heirs. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that High Courts have discretionary power under Section 100(5) CPC to frame additional substantial questions of law in second appeals, but this exceptional power requires strong reasons that must be specifically recorded. 
• When framing additional questions, courts must ensure the question is grounded in pleadings and lower court findings, is fundamental to the case, builds upon already formulated substantial questions, constitutes genuine legal issues rather than mere pleas, and includes recorded reasons. 
• Respondents must receive proper opportunity to contest newly framed questions. Parties must be notified and allowed to present arguments. Framing questions during judgment delivery without hearing parties is improper procedure. 
• Introducing Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act at second appeal stage created an entirely new case rather than raising new legal arguments. This required meeting different legal tests based on witness identity rather than testator capacity issues originally pleaded. 
• The Court emphasised proper cross-examination principles from Browne v. Dunn, noting that failure to put contrary positions to witnesses regarding attesting witness relationships constituted significant procedural deficiency. 
• Courts must uphold validly executed and proved wills, respecting testators' wishes rather than opening contrary succession arrangements. Both lower courts had made concurrent findings regarding the will's validity. 
• The Court directed appellant to compensate beneficiaries within three months, increasing amounts from ₹50,000-₹1,00,000 to ₹5,00,000-₹10,00,000 per beneficiary, with 6% annual interest and property charge provisions for default. 
• Article 136 jurisdiction requires extraordinary care, being exercised only in exceptional cases with special circumstances demanding intervention for justice considerations. 

What is Second Appeal? 

• Second appeal is the final appellate remedy available under Section 100 of CPC when a party remains dissatisfied with the first appellate court's decision. It can only be filed before the High Court and is strictly limited to substantial questions of law. 
• Unlike first appeals that examine both factual and legal issues, second appeals are confined to legal questions of substantial importance since the 1976 amendment. The appeal must involve questions that directly affect parties' rights, have general public importance, or concern unsettled legal principles. 
• Second appeals form the third tier of India's judicial hierarchy after trial courts and first appellate courts. They serve as a filtering mechanism, preventing frivolous litigation while ensuring High Courts address only significant legal issues rather than re-examining factual determinations. 
• The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact from lower courts unless there is legal perversity or misapplication of law. This restriction maintains judicial efficiency while allowing development of jurisprudence on important legal questions. 
• The memorandum of appeal must precisely state the substantial question of law involved, and the High Court must formulate this question when admitting the appeal. The hearing is then limited to the formulated question, though courts may frame additional substantial questions with recorded reasons. 
• Second appeals thus represent the final opportunity for legal challenge while preserving the integrity of the three-tier judicial system and ensuring judicial resources focus on matters of genuine legal significance. 

What is Section 100 of CPC ? 

• Section 100 restricts second appeals to High Courts to substantial questions of law only. Appeals from subordinate appellate courts are permitted only when significant legal issues are involved, not factual disputes. 
• The 1977 amendment eliminated appeals on questions of fact, creating a filtering mechanism. Appellants must precisely state the substantial question in their memorandum, and High Courts must formulate this question when admitting the appeal. 
• Appeals are heard solely on the formulated question. The proviso allows High Courts to frame additional substantial questions with recorded reasons, but this power is discretionary and exceptional. 
• High Courts cannot reexamine evidence or interfere with concurrent factual findings unless there is legal perversity. This maintains judicial efficiency while preserving legal review for matters of genuine significance. 
• The provision balances access to justice with preventing frivolous litigation, ensuring only legally important matters reach High Courts while maintaining finality of factual determinations made by lower courts.