(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2025 in A.S.No.14 of 2024 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Karur confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2022 made in O.S.No.98 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Kulithalai.)

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.14 of 2024 dated 18.12.2025 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.98 of 2013 dated 22.12.2022 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kulithalai.

2. The appellants are the defendants. The respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit to declare that the suit property is belonging to them, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. The appellants / defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree dated 22.12.2022 granting the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession and directed the defendants to pay Rs.72,000/- as compensation and also directed for ascertainment of future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2024 and the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karur, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.2025 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the first appeal, the defendants have filed the present Second Appeal.

5. At the outset, it is necessary to refer the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court for High Courts in deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, given in the case of Gurnam Singh (dead) by LRs., and others Vs. Lehna Singh (dead) by LRs., reported in AIR 2019 SC 1441, that the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:

               “18. Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in the case of Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264, despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law.”

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 has specifically held that right of appeal is not automatic and right of appeal is conferred by statute and when statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to the High Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the principles relating to Section 100 C.P.C., which are as follows;

               “(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law.

               (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law.

               (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the wellrecognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision based on no evidence", it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.”

7. Bearing the settled legal position in mind, let us proceed with the present case.

8. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property originally belonged to the defendants, that the defendants offered the suit property for sale for total consideration of Rs.8,25,000/-, that the first plaintiff's husband Krishnamoorthy agreed to purchase the property from the first defendant and her husband Sankar and in pursuance of the sale, sale agreement was entered into on 08.02.2010 and on that day, the defendants received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance, that the first plaintiff's husband agreed to pay the balance sale price of Rs.7,75,000/-, that the first defendant and her husband receiving the balance sale consideration executed a registered sale deed on 07.07.2010 in favour of the plaintiffs, that the defendants requested time from the plaintiffs to find out alternative accommodation and vacate the suit property, that the plaintiffs permitted the defendants to reside in the suit property and directed them to vacate and hand over the possession at an early date, that since the defendants were postponing, the first plaintiff's brother cum power agent Sellamuthu sent a legal notice to the first defendant and her husband demanding vacant possession of the suit property and for damages on 08.11.2011, that the defendants having received the legal notice have neither sent any reply nor complied with the notice demand, that the defendants have again approached the plaintiffs and requested some more time to vacate the suit property and requested not to initiate any legal proceedings, that the defendants, after the death of the first defendant's husband, without vacating the suit property filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013 to declare that the sale deed dated 07.07.2010 is invalid, that the defendants with the help of sale price given by the plaintiffs discharged the mortgage loan with the GIC Housing Finance and handed over the receipt to the plaintiffs, that the defendants' contention in the said suit that they had no intention to sell the property and that there was an agreement between the parties for reconveyance are all false and untenable and that therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit for declaration and recovery of possession and mesne profits.

9. The defence of the defendants is that since the first defendant's daughter was studying medicine in Russia, they have obtained loan thrice from the plaintiffs and paid interest therefor, that the parties have fixed the sale price at Rs.8,25,000/- and since the defendants have already obtained Rs.3,75,000/- as loan, the plaintiffs had agreed to pay the balance sale price of Rs.4,50,000/- and get the sale deed executed, that since the defendants were not interested in selling the property, they had decided to repay the loan amount, but the plaintiffs pressurized the defendants to execute a sale deed or else civil and criminal proceedings would be initiated, that the plaintiffs had also agreed that the defendants can repay the loan amount at any time and get back the property, that the defendants have been paying house tax, water tax and electricity consumption charges, that though the suit property is worth more than Rs.15 lakhs, the plaintiffs are attempting to grap the suit property for Rs.3,75,000/- and that therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

10. It is the specific case of the defendants that they had availed three loans from the plaintiffs and had been paying interest on the said loan amounts. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs approached them and instructed them to execute a sale agreement in respect of the suit property representing that the said sale agreement was only a nominal one and that the same would be cancelled at any time upon repayment of the loan amount. However, in the written statement, the defendants have admitted the fixation of the sale price at Rs.8,25,000/- and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

               “Till May 2010 the defendants received the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- only from the plaintiffs. In the sale agreement the sum of Rs.8,25,000/- was fixed as the sale price for the said property and after deducting the amount received by the defendants the plaintiffs have to pay the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendants before execution of the sale deed.”

11. It is not in dispute that the defendants have specifically admitted the execution of the sale deed dated 07.07.2010. However, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs pressurized the defendants to execute the sale deed by threatening to initiate civil and criminal proceedings and it was only on account of such pressure that they were compelled to execute the said sale deed.

12. Though the defendants have alleged that the sale agreement as well as the sale deed were executed only as a security for the loan transaction, they have not adduced any evidence to substantiate the said claim.

13. The defendants have also taken a stand that the plaintiffs had agreed to reconvey the suit property upon repayment of the loan amount; however, no such agreement has been produced. It is not the case of the defendants that they had entered into any reconveyance agreement either with the first plaintiff's husband or with the plaintiffs themselves. D.W.1, in his evidence, would admit,



       

4. Thus, even according to the defendants, the alleged agreement to reconvey the property was not entered on the date of execution of the sale deed but only 4, 5 months subsequent thereto.

15. As rightly observed by the Courts below, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the plaintiffs had agreed to reconvey the property. As already pointed out, though the defendants alleged that they had been paying the house tax, water tax and electricity consumption charges, D.W.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that the plaintiffs had been paying the same and that the defendants did not raise any objections thereto.

16. It is not in dispute that the defendants had earlier filed the suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013 seeking to declare the sale deed dated 07.07.2010 as invalid; however, the said suit was subsequently dismissed for default.

17. Considering the evidence available on record, the Courts below have rightly come to the decision that the plaintiffs, being the owners of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 07.07.2010, are entitled to the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession.

18. The learned trial Judge, taking into consideration of the admitted possession of the defendants over the suit property and the fact that the claim for compensation at Rs.2,000/- per month was not specifically challenged, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- as compensation and directed the ascertainment of future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. The said finding was rightly confirmed by the learned First appellate Judge and as such, the same cannot be faulted.

19. Considering the judgments of the Courts below, no question of law much less Substantial Question of Law is made out. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan's case referred supra, it is not open to this Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the first appellate Court, confirming the findings of the trial Court. Consequently, this Court concludes that since no substantial question of law is made out in the second appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the appellate Court made in A.S.No.14 of 2024, dated 18.12.2025 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.98 of 2013 dated 22.12.2022 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kulithalai. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.