The Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court of Kerala’s judgment in a Second Appeal, ruling that the High Court failed to fulfill the mandatory statutory requirement under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to formulate and answer substantial questions of law. The Supreme Court further clarified that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that Section 68—which pertains to documents required by law to be attested—is inapplicable to registered sale deeds, as they do not require compulsory attestation. The matter has been remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration.
Background
- Original Suit: The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession of the “B” Schedule property, and cancellation of a 1996 sale deed executed by defendant no. 3 in favor of the appellants.
- Lower Court Rulings:
- The Trial Court allowed the suit, declaring the plaintiffs as the owners and the 1996 sale deed as null and void.
- The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of their own reliance document (a 1978 sale deed).
- High Court Intervention: The High Court allowed the plaintiffs’ Second Appeal, holding that under the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, a mere bald denial of a document in a written statement is insufficient; it requires a specific denial in a separate suit or proceeding initiated by the person who allegedly executed the document.
Key Findings of the Supreme Court
- Mandatory Formulation of Questions of Law: The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 100 CPC, the High Court is strictly obligated to formulate substantial questions of law at the time of admission and decide the appeal based on those questions. Failure to do so vitiates the judgment.
- Inapplicability of Section 68 to Sale Deeds: The Court clarified that Section 68 of the Evidence Act only applies to documents required by law to be attested (e.g., Wills or Gift deeds). A registered sale deed does not require attestation under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and thus Section 68 and its proviso are irrelevant to the proof of such documents.
- Misinterpretation of the Proviso: The Court held that the High Court’s interpretation—requiring a separate suit to challenge the execution of a document—incorrectly added requirements not provided for in the statute. A proviso must be interpreted strictly in relation to the main provision and cannot expand the scope of the substantive law.
Conclusion
- Order: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and remitted the matter for de novo
- Directions: The High Court is directed to hear the Second Appeal afresh, formulate substantial questions of law, and dispose of the matter within three months.
Would you like to explore the specific legal distinctions between documents that require mandatory attestation and those that do not, as clarified in this judgment?
2026 INSC 703
R.Veronica & Anr. v. Rudrayani Devaki (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)
