Remand appeal limits and deed interpretation: High Court cannot reweigh facts, and a recital prevails over a conflicting schedule.

An appeal against an order of remand under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to the discipline of second appellate jurisdiction: the High Court must limit itself to substantial questions of law and cannot reappreciate evidence or reopen pure findings of fact. The Court held that no substantial question of law had been framed and the High Court's minute factual scrutiny was beyond jurisdiction. On construction of the sale deed, the instrument must be read as a whole, and where the body of the deed and the schedule conflict, the recital in the body prevails if it reflects the parties' true intention. The disputed property was therefore not conveyed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether in an appeal against an order of remand under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court could reappreciate evidence and travel beyond the limits applicable to a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the disputed property was intended to be conveyed under the sale deed or whether the schedule in the document could override the recital showing a narrower transfer.

Issue (i): Whether in an appeal against an order of remand under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court could reappreciate evidence and travel beyond the limits applicable to a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: An appeal from a remand order under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) lies only where an appeal would lie from the decree that would have followed the appellate adjudication. The court treated such an appeal as one governed by the same discipline as a second appeal. Accordingly, the High Court was required to confine itself to substantial questions of law and could not reopen pure findings of fact or reassess evidence as if hearing a first appeal. Since no substantial question of law had been formulated and the High Court had entered minute factual scrutiny, its interference was beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court could not reappreciate facts in the appeal against remand and was bound by the limitations of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure; its interference was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed property was intended to be conveyed under the sale deed or whether the schedule in the document could override the recital showing a narrower transfer.

Analysis: The document was read as a whole, and the recital in the body of the deed clearly showed that only the property allotted in the relevant schedule of the earlier settlement deed was intended to be transferred. The disputed D Schedule property and the intervening accreditation were not covered by that intention. Where there is inconsistency between the operative recital in the body of the document and the schedule, the recital prevails. The surrounding circumstances and the evidence accepted by the first appellate court supported the conclusion that the broader description in the schedule was the result of fraud or deceptive drafting.

Conclusion: The disputed property was not intended to be conveyed, and the contrary description in the schedule could not defeat the clear recital in the deed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment under appeal was set aside, the first appellate court's determination was restored, and the appellant succeeded on both the jurisdictional and title-related issues.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal against an order of remand under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be confined to the limits of second appellate jurisdiction, and when a document's recital and schedule conflict, the recital governs if it reflects the true intention of the parties.

---