Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a partition suit after restoring concurrent findings that the plaintiff had not proved minority when executing a registered release deed. The school certificate’s source, entries and asserted signature were not proved, and it was not shown to be a certified public-document copy. The High Court improperly reassessed that evidence in second appeal without a substantial question of law. Admitted registered documents and the inadequately pleaded challenge supported dismissal.
Issues
- Whether the school certificate proved the plaintiff’s claimed minority.
- Whether the High Court could reverse the concurrent factual findings in second appeal.
Held
- The certificate was not shown to be a certified public-document copy. No school official or other competent witness proved the entry or the asserted father’s signature; the self-serving assertion did not establish the recorded birth date. Relevance of an official entry is distinct from its proved authenticity and probative value. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The plaintiff admitted execution of the registered release and marriage documents and receipt of consideration. The plaint did not specifically challenge the release for minority at execution, fraud, coercion or undue influence. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the asserted minority. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- A second appeal does not permit substitution of another factual view merely because it is possible. Interference requires the requisite substantial question of law, such as a legally unsustainable or perverse finding, absence of evidence or material misreading. No such defect was established in the concurrent evaluation here. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court’s reversal set aside and partition suit dismissed. No order as to costs.