S. 100 CPC | Findings Of Fact, Even If Erroneous, Cannot Be Disturbed In Second Appeal: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that while hearing a second appeal, it is impermissible for the High Courts to reopen and disturb the factual findings of the Court below by re-appreciating the evidence.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed an appeal filed by the defendant, who was aggrieved by the High Court's affirmation of the First Appellate Court's decree of specific performance. The Appellant-defendant alleged that the fact-based findings recorded by the First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness, extension of time, and payment of cash money were erroneous, which was not re-appreciated by the High Court to arrive at a just conclusion.

The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land executed in 1988. While the trial court denied specific performance and granted only refund of part consideration, the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed specific performance, finding that the plaintiff had proved payment, extension of time, and readiness and willingness.

The High Court, in second appeal, declined to interfere, holding that no substantial question of law arose, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal observed :

"It is settled in law that the findings of fact howsoever erroneous, cannot be reopened and disturbed in second appeal which is required to be adjudicated only upon the substantial question of law, if any, arising therein. Thus, the argument that the High Court in second appeal ought to have examined the evidence to ensure the correctness of the findings of the First Appellate Court has no legs to stand and fails."

The Court said that unless the High Court frames a substantial question of law, it is impermissible for it to re-appreciated or disturb the fact-based findings, even though the same appears to be erroneous.

“…the findings as returned by the First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness, extension of time and payment of cash money are not perverse and illegal, which may warrant any interference.”, the court observed, pointing out that in the absence of a substantial question of law, the High Court is barred from re-examining the fact-based findings.

“…the argument that the High Court in second appeal ought to have examined the evidence to ensure the correctness of the findings of the First Appellate Court has no legs to stand and fails.”, the Court held.

Accordingly, the decree made by the First Appellate Court was maintained.

Cause Title: RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS BHAVNA SETH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Ms. Nina Nariman, Adv. Mr. Manish Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, AOR Mr. Febin Mathew Varghese, Adv. Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv. Veda Singh, Adv. Ms. Lija Merin John, Adv. Mr. N. Sai Kaushal, Adv Soyarchon Khangrah, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Mr. Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, AOR Mr. Ketan Madan, Adv. Gurmehar Sistani, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv.