ivil Appeal No 2635 of 1989
From the judgment and order dated 31182 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No 2136 of 1979
J Ramamurti R Vagai and KK Mani for the appellant
section Padmanabhan Mrs Anjani and K Ramkumar for the respondent
The judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
Leave granted
Heard learned counsel for the par ties
Facts necessary for this appeal are that the petitioner appellant original defendant purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 27121950 executed by Asirvada Nadar Ponnammal and Devadasan in favour of the present petitioner appellant for a consideration of Rs7000
On 411951 the present respondent executed a rent agreement in favour of the present appellant for the building acknowledg ing her as her landlady  Rs80 per month
In 1963 the mother of the appellant by name of Rama lakshmi Ammal died
In 1974 the respondent filed the suit from which the present appeal arises viz Suit No 79 of 1974 against the petitioner appellant for conveyance of the property of the petitioner in favour of the respondent on the ground of a Yadast  which was for the first time pro duced with the suit and is alleged to have been written by the mother of the petitioner on 2412
1950 which is marked as exhibit A 11 in favour of the respondent
This document provided that respondent could get conveyance of the proper ty in the suit from the petitioner after paying the sale price of Rs7000 and Rs 1000 for registration expenses
This Yadast  so called agreement was on a plain piece of paper which is neither stamped nor registered nor attested
It is also significant that although this document is al leged to have been written on 241250 even before the sale deed of the property itself was executed in favour of the appellant but this document was not even mentioned in the notice which was served by the respondent on the present appellant before this suit nor there is any reference any where in any earlier correspondence nor there is a mention of this document in the sale deed dated 27121950 which apparently is of a date subsequent to 24121950 nor there is any mention of it in the rent 836 agreement dated 411951 to which the present respondent himself is a party
By judgment dated 8111978 the trial court Sub Judge relying on this Yadast  decreed the suit filed by the respondent
On appeal the Additional District Judge after detailed examination of all the facts and evidence came to the find ings of fact that the present petitioner acquired title to the property on the basis of the sale deed which is a regis tered document in her favour and this property was leased out to the respondent under a rent agreement
It also held that as the mother of the petitioner was not a party to the sale deed she had no right to agree to convey the property or to ask the daughter to convey the suit property in favour of the respondent
The plaintiff respondent was not a party to the sale deed transferor but is only a stranger who became a tenant under the rent agreement
1n fact the sale deed was executed by some other person and therefore this Yadast  could not be said to be an agreement to reconvey the property as apparently both the parties to the Yadast  one making the commitment to reconvey and another in whose favour the commitment is made are not parties at all to the original transaction of sale
The learned Additional District Judge also came to the conclusion that this document was not genuine and is a forged document which is invalid and was just got up for the purposes of this suit and it has seen the light of the day for the first time after 23 years after the date on which it purports to have been executed and for all these 23 years it was never referred to also
The learned appellate Court also felt that the suit for specific performance was barred as it was filed more than 20 years after the alleged Yadast  agreement The learned Judge of the High Court in second appeal by the impugned judgment interfered with the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate court which was the final court of facts and went on at length to reassess the evi dence and not only to reassess but unfortunately the circum stances have even been imagined to suggest the connection between the Yadast  and the sale deed when in fact there is no mention of this kind of document in the sale deed al though it bears a date even earlier to the sale deed and it is on this ground that the special leave petition is filed
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contend ed that the suit for specific performance of the contract could only be decreed 837 against the executant of the contract provided the executant had a right to dispose of the property about which the suit is filed
Admittedly the mother of the present appellant who is alleged to have executed the Yadast  is not the owner of the property and the sale deed is in favour of the present appellant does not disclose that the present appel lant purchased the property either as Benami on behalf of the mother or as a nominee of the mother
It appears there fore that a theory of some loan and repayment was invented but the learned Judge of the High Court failed to notice that even if this agreement was genuine it could only be enforced against the executant and not against the present appellant
In fact the theory of loan which was suggested and a case was sought to be made out that the sale deed was not an out and out sale but only as a guarantee for the loan and therefore this Yadast  was in substance a document of reconveyance
The learned Judge of the High Court failed to notice that the respondent is not the person who executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant
In fact both the parties to the Yadast  are strangers to the sale deed and the sale deed does not refer to any one of them nor there is anything in the sale deed to indicate that it was not an out and out sale
Unfortunately the learned Judge of the High Court has not even discussed the reasons on the basis of which the learned first appellate court had come to a finding of fact that this document is a forgery and could not be said to be a genuine document
The learned first appellate court came to this conclu sion on the basisof the circumstances which could not be denied although this document bears a date earlier than the sale deed and the rent agreement to which the respondent himself is a party but there is no mention of this document in anyone of those two documents
There is no reference about this document for all these years ie from 1950 to 1974 even in the suit notice
It is also a circumstance relied on by the lower appellate court that it is on ordi nary piece of paper not a stamped paper
It is not regis tered and it is not attested and in view of these circum stances and especially of the fact that during the lifetime of Ramalakshmi Ammal mother who is alleged to be the executant this document did not see the light of the day nor was referred to at any stage
The learned lower appellate court came to a finding of fact and the High Court unfortu nately has not given reasons as to why these circumstances should not be considered
The learned Judge has chosen to interfere with the findings of fact solely on the basis of one ground 838 that the evidence of the scribe of this document Yadast  was not discussed by the lower appellate court but the evidence of the scribe who has chosen to write such a docu ment is worthless and the learned lower appellate court therefore was fight in not relying on this evidence
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as under Second appeal 1 Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court if the High court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law
2 An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte
3 In an appeal under this section the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal
4 Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case it shall formulate that question
5 The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall at the hearing of the appeal be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such ques tion Provided that nothing in this sub section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear for reasons to be recorded the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it if it is satisfied that the case involves such question A perusal of this Section clearly indicates that the High Court had the jurisdiction to interfere only when a substan tial question of law is involved and even then it is expect ed that such a question shall be so framed although the court is not bound by that question as the proviso indi cates
There may be some other substantial questions of law which may need decision and which can be so decided
839 After going through the judgment of the High Court in this appeal we find that there is no substantial question of law and much less a question of law on the basis of which the learned Judge exercised jurisdiction under Section 100 and interfered with the findings of fact
The only reason on the basis of which the High Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 100 is what has been said by the learned Judge himself As already stated its failure to consider the evidence of PW 2 as well as its wrong surmise that exhibit B 16 series contained the signatures of Ramalakshmi Ammal has affected the validity of the finding rendered by it
 It is well known that PW 2 is the scribe of a document which has been found to be forged by the lower appellate court and therefore a person who can go to the extent of manufacturing a document to suit one of the parties to the litigation in our opinion cannot be said to be an inde pendent witness and the lower appellate court was right in discarding his testimony
Unfortunately the High Court felt that he was an independent witness
The learned Judge felt that the signatures on exhibit B 16 of Ramalakshmi Ammal is a mere surmise but this inference itself appears to be nothing but imagination as the signa tures prove the receipt by Ramalakshmi Ammal of a notice from Tuticorin Municipality for the collection of house tax
This all in the opinion of the learned Judge was a substantial question of law which called for interference and it is clear that on such questions which have no sub stance and which could not be said to be even question of law the interference by the High Court in second appeal could not be justified
At best the two questions on which the High Court chose to interfere quoted above could be said to be questions of appreciation of evidence
In our opinion therefore the High Court was not fight in interfering with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned lower appellate court
The appeal is therefore allowed the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that passed by the lower appellate court is restored
The appellant shall be entitled to costs of this appeal
Costs quantified at Rs3000
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The petitioner group A  scientist belonging to the non medical wing of the Directorate General of Health Serv ices filed a wit petition in this Court seeking parity in pay scales and allowances with his counter part in the medical wing
It was contended that group A  scientists are treated discriminately vis a vis their counter parts in other Ministries because the former are not given any promotional benefits while the latter are provided with avenues for promotion
Allowing the writ petition this Court HELD 1
Provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective
Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service
There is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion the non medical A  group scientists in the establishment of Directorate General of Health Serv ices would be deprived of such advantage
181B 2
In a welfare State it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and therefore it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to pro vide promotional avenue for this category of officers 181 C 3
On the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology appropriate rules should be framed providing promotional avenue for the A  category scientists in the non medical wing of the Directorate
181D 178 4 A  Group scientists shall be entitled to book allow ance higher degree allowance risk allowance and conveyance allowance at the same rate as is admissible to doctors in the Medical wing in the Directorate
18IF 5
Government shall examine the tenability of the claim of Group A  scientists for equal pay scales with their counterparts in medical wing
181G