Appeal from original decree
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with appeal from original decree. Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.
1[(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed 2 [ten thousand rupees.]]
Section 96, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Banarsi v. Ram Phal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-9.pdf 2003-02-17. CA 2001. CPC 96 first appeal: a person who is not aggrieved by the decree cannot appeal; a respondent who has not filed a cross-appeal/cross-objection cannot obtain a variation of the decree in his favour. Map cpc 96.
On this section: s.96 first appeal: only a person aggrieved by the decree may appeal. A respondent who has not filed a cross-appeal or cross-objection cannot obtain a variation of the decree in his favour.
-
Narayanan Rajendran vs Lekshmy Sarojini
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under Section 100 CPC as amended in 1976, the High Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with judgments of subordinate courts only where a substantial question of law is involved. Such substantial question of law must be formulated by the High Court at the time of admission of the second appeal itself. The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact made by trial court and first appellate court merely on the ground that another view was possible or that the findings appear perverse. When no substantial question of law is formulated by the High Court, or when the High Court bases its judgment on grounds not raised by parties, not pleaded in the suit, and on which no evidence was led and no issues framed by trial court, such interference is jurisdictionally ultra vires and the judgment must be set aside.
On this section: Referenced for contrast with Section 100 to show that under Section 96 first appeal, appellate court can go into questions of fact, whereas under Section 100 second appeal, High Court cannot.
-
Sinnamani vs G. Vettivel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a statute (such as the Indian Trust Act) provides for filing a suit for certain purposes (e.g., Section 59 for beneficiary enforcement of trusts) and provides for filing original petitions for other purposes (e.g., Sections 72-73 for trustee management), the procedure prescribed by the statute must be strictly followed. An Original Petition filed in violation of this statutory procedure cannot be converted into a suit in the absence of an express enabling provision in the statute itself (such as exists in Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act but does not exist in the Trust Act). Courts cannot invoke general principles like the doctrine against hyper-technicalities or inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to circumvent the mandatory procedural distinctions established by the statute.
On this section: Provides for appeals from district court orders; beneficiaries appealed under this section
-
J. P. Builders vs A. Ramadas Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement, the plaintiff must establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform his obligations from the date of contract to the date of decree through conduct, part-payment, and financial capacity. Readiness refers to financial capacity while willingness refers to conduct of the plaintiff. When a contract involves obtaining clearance from a third party (such as a bank) for release of mortgaged property, such obtaining of clearance is an incidental and implied covenant on the vendor's part and does not make the contract contingent or impossible to perform. The equitable doctrine of marshalling under Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is available to a decree holder in a suit for specific performance to ensure that the mortgagee exhausts its remedy from other properties of the mortgagor before proceeding against the property sold to the subsequent purchaser, provided such application does not prejudice the mortgagee's rights. A pure question of law can be raised for the first time at the appellate stage even if not specifically pleaded at trial, particularly when larger relief was prayed in the plaint.
On this section: Provides for first appeals from trial court; High Court has jurisdiction to hear first appeals and can also hear connected writ petitions
-
Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a testator sets apart a specific sum of money in a will for the benefit of identified beneficiaries and directs that an immoveable property be purchased from that sum, the property so purchased vests absolutely in the beneficiaries to the extent of the amount contributed by the testator, notwithstanding that the property may be purchased in the testator's name or that the testator uses non-technical language such as 'wakf' or creates a trustee structure. The testator's true intention must be ascertained from the will read as a whole in the context of surrounding circumstances, including the testator's family situation, the position of the beneficiaries, and post-testamentary conduct of family members. The use of precautionary measures such as trustees and limited disbursement provisions does not negate absolute ownership but merely reflects the testator's concern for prudent management of the funds.
On this section: Establishes that the First Appellate Court is the last court of facts. The High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse, and only if a proper question of law is framed.
-
Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 4 of the Partition Act 1893 grants a co-heir shareholder of a dwelling house held by an undivided family the right to undertake to buy the share of an outsider transferee, thereby excluding the outsider from acquiring the property. An agreement of sale executed by some co-heirs but not joined by all co-heirs (particularly a minor co-heir whose share is included) is void and ineffective. Specific performance is a discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and should not be granted after a considerable lapse of time (21 years) when property values have escalated significantly. A factual concession made by counsel with client instructions binds the client and cannot be challenged in appeal. The court shall exercise its discretion under Article 136 to uphold a High Court judgment that has done substantial justice by protecting all parties' rights equitably.
On this section: CPC Section 96(3) provides that no appeal lies from a decree passed by court with the consent of parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court judgment of March 3, 2009, as evidenced by paragraph 7 (showing counsel's agreement on market valuation and payment modality), constituted a consent order and therefore was not appealable under Article 136 of the Constitution.
-
Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & Stationery
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Appeals pending under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act before the District Judge are not liable to be transferred to Administrative Tribunals under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, because the Payment of Wages Act is a 'Corresponding Law' within the meaning of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and the jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15 and the District Judge under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act remains protected and unaffected by the establishment of Administrative Tribunals. The saving clause in Section 14 ('Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act') and the exceptions in Section 28 preserve the jurisdiction of labor law authorities, and the 'cause of action' test in Sections 29 and 29A applies only to matters that would have been cognizable by the Tribunal originally.
On this section: Provides for appeals from trial courts. The Court used this as a comparison point to distinguish between general civil appeals and special appeals under the Payment of Wages Act.
-
Vls Prasad vs Strip India Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Power of Attorney is legally terminated automatically upon the death of the principal executant. Any subsequent sale deed executed by the attorney on behalf of the deceased principal is void and can transfer no right, title, or interest.
On this section: Invoked to appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit.
-
Gopalkrishna S Bakale vs Sri Ganapathi C Bakale
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mere filing of an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC does not ipso facto mandate a detailed trial; the Executing Court is justified in summary rejection if the claim is legally untenable or lacks prima facie documentary support of independent title.
On this section: Maintainability of appeal against an order deemed as a decree.
-
Lalit Jasrajbhai Patel vs Jadhavlal Mavji Patel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An admitted signature on a cheque triggers a statutory presumption of consideration under the NI Act, and such an instrument constitutes an 'acknowledgment in writing' under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, resetting the limitation period from the date of the instrument.
On this section: Providing for first appeals against original decrees.
-
Land Acquisition Officer vs Patel Hirenbhai Maneklal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When determining market value of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a Reference Court may properly rely on comparable valuations from adjacent villages with similar land characteristics, even if appellate proceedings regarding those comparable valuations are pending in higher courts, provided the comparable judgment has been confirmed by the appellate court at the level of the High Court. The pendency of a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court does not invalidate the use of such comparable valuations as a basis for determining market value in similar land acquisition cases.
On this section: First Appeal - cited as basis for appellate jurisdiction of High Court
-
Spl.laq Officer vs Thakore Keshaji Bhayaji
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When determining fair market value compensation for agricultural land acquired for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the High Court must ensure consistency and comparability across multiple cases involving adjacent villages with similar acquisition timelines and land characteristics. Where the High Court has previously established a compensation rate in comparable cases, that rate should be applied to subsequent cases involving adjoining lands with similar factual matrices, even if lower courts have awarded higher compensation based on witness testimony and documentary evidence. The principle of consistency and precedent takes precedence over individual case evidence when dealing with multiple consolidated appeals involving the same acquisition project.
On this section: First Appeal; procedural framework for appeals from District Court to High Court
-
Spl.laq Officer vs Rupsangji Vasaji Decd. Thro' Heirs Jawanji Rupsangji
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When land acquired for public purpose in one village is adjoining to land acquired in adjacent villages under notifications issued in close temporal proximity, and the High Court has already reduced compensation rates in the adjacent villages from Rs. 28 to Rs. 26.60 per square meter based on comparable land valuations, the same reduced rate should be applied to the adjoining village to maintain consistency and uniformity in compensation determination, notwithstanding the Reference Court's award of the higher rate.
On this section: First Appeal from orders of subordinate courts - procedural basis for appeals to High Court
-
Sri Panu Kanta Nath vs The State of Tripura
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A claim of minority to invalidate a registered deed, raised significantly late and supported only by inconsistent duplicate records, cannot override the presumption of regularity in the registration process and the competence of the parties at the time of execution.
On this section: Procedural basis for filing the title appeal.
-
Surabhi Srinivasa Rao vs Naidu Dorababu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a defendant alleges forgery but takes no proactive steps to provide expert evidence, the court is empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare signatures and reach a finding of fact.
On this section: Provision for filing an appeal against an original decree.
-
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Nayi Savitaben Dhulabhai Abated
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, may properly rely upon comparable awards from the same village for determining market value of acquired land, even if a Special Leave Petition against those comparable awards is pending in the Supreme Court, provided the High Court has already confirmed the comparable award. The pendency of a Special Leave Petition does not invalidate the use of comparable awards as a valuation methodology, and the Reference Court does not commit error in relying upon such comparable awards when determining compensation.
On this section: Jurisdiction for appeals from judgments of subordinate courts
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The High Court concluded that a litigant who was already a party to the suit, but disputes the existence or validity of a compromise recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 must first approach the Trial Court; a First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, it held, is available only to a person who was not on the record of the suit. Following that pronouncement, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed every pending AO on 06.09.2019 for want of maintainability. Both the reference judgment and the consequential order are impugned in these appeals. 2. …
-
… In the backdrop of above facts, the question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the appellants held the locus to question the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and whether the High Court was justified in rejecting their leave to appeal. 15. Section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from decree in appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. However, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file …
-
… Building, Ramamoorthy Nagar Chinthamani Tiruchirappalli. 19.Victor 20.Masi 21.Muthu 22.Pitchaiammal 23.Pattayadar 24.Periyasamy 25.Mayavan 26.Alagesan 27.Prakash : Respondents/ defendants (Respondents 11,14,20,21,23,24,26,27 exparte in lower Court) Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2012 made in O.S.No.28/2008 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. | For appellants | : | Mr.K.K.Senthil | …
Questions about Section 96
What have the courts held on Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Banarsi v. Ram Phal (17 Feb 2003) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.96 first appeal: only a person aggrieved by the decree may appeal. A respondent who has not filed a cross-appeal or cross-objection cannot obtain a variation of the decree in his favour. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1995 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 96, section 96 CPC, section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 96(2) and cpc 96 order 41. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Banarsi v. Ram Phal (17 Feb 2003).
What should I read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 96, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.