In Brief
Uma Pandey and others, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral agricultural land against family members. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed it based on documentary evidence (Ex-A). The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' second appeal in limine, holding it raised no substantial question of law. The Supreme Court held that document interpretation and admissibility constitute substantial questions of law and warrant second appeal admission. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for decision on merits on framed substantial questions of law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.