Unauthorised occupation and succession-based title support civil court eviction jurisdiction; second appeal interference was unwarranted.

Where title to the premises was found to vest in the respondent by succession and the occupants were held to be in unauthorised occupation, the factual findings of the courts below were treated as binding. On that basis, the Civil Court was held to have jurisdiction to order eviction, and no substantial question of law arose for interference in second appeal. The High Court's refusal to disturb those findings was therefore sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal for want of a substantial question of law, and whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to order eviction on the facts found.

Analysis: The premises were held to belong to the respondent by succession, and the appellants were found to be in unauthorized occupation. Those findings of fact were accepted by the courts below and were not interfered with by the High Court. On that factual foundation, the Civil Court alone had jurisdiction to grant eviction, and no interference was called for in second appeal.

Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's order failed, and the appeals were dismissed.

---