Mere revenue entries and unproved partition documents cannot defeat a coparcener’s claim to ancestral property.

The plaintiffs (Respondents 1-4) filed a suit for declaration of title, partition, and possession of ancestral properties belonging to their late parents, Satanand and Yashodabai

The defendants (Appellants) contested the suit, asserting a prior partition based on a "sahmati patra" (consent letter/agreement) dated July 14, 2005 (Ex.D-1), and subsequent revenue entries

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that a prior partition was established via Ex.D-1

The First Appellate Court reversed this, finding Ex.D-1 to be unproven and unreliable due to contradictions in testimony and the plaintiffs' denial of its execution

The defendants appealed to the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC

1. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s findings regarding the validity of the prior partition evidenced by the "sahmati patra" (Ex.D-1)

2. Whether a substantial question of law exists under Section 100 of the CPC to warrant interference with the First Appellate Court's findings of fact

The court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limits the scope of Second Appeals strictly to substantial questions of law and prohibits interference with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence

It also considered the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and the principle that a prior partition must be proved by cogent and reliable evidence to bar a subsequent claim for share in ancestral property

Reliance was also placed on the standard that revenue entries alone do not prove possession or title in the face of contradictory evidence

The High Court observed that while the Trial Court relied on Ex.D-1 to presume a prior partition, the First Appellate Court correctly re-appreciated the evidence to find that the defendants failed to prove the document's legal execution

The Court noted material contradictions in the defense witnesses’ testimonies and the plaintiffs' consistent denial of the agreement

The Court held that since the alleged "sahmati patra" was not proven in accordance with law, the ancestral nature of the property necessitated a lawful partition among the heirs

It further reasoned that the findings of the First Appellate Court were grounded in a proper evaluation of admissions and material facts, rather than conjectures, and thus did not meet the threshold of "perversity" required for reversal in a Second Appeal

The plaintiffs are entitled to their lawful share in the ancestral property as the defendants failed to establish the occurrence of a valid, binding prior settlement; The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court