Second appeal limits and proof objections: concurrent findings stand absent a real substantial question of law, and late admissibility challenges fail.

Second appellate jurisdiction is confined to genuine substantial questions of law, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless perverse or based on misreading of evidence; the High Court therefore should not reappreciate evidence on an assumption contrary to those findings. An objection to admissibility must be taken when a document is tendered, and a later challenge limited to mode of proof is waived if no timely objection is raised. Regular account books with supporting oral evidence may be relied on, municipal entries do not by themselves prove title, and a tenant cannot validly attorn to a third party during the subsistence of the original tenancy. The appellant's entitlement to possession and rent was thus upheld in the discussion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could reappreciate the evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact in the absence of any real substantial question of law. (ii) Whether documents admitted in evidence without objection, including photocopies and account books, could later be excluded as inadmissible, and whether the evidence proved title to the suit property and invalidity of the tenant's attornment to the temple.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could reappreciate the evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact in the absence of any real substantial question of law.

Analysis: Second appellate jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law. Where the trial court and first appellate court have concurrently found title and entitlement on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the High Court cannot begin with an assumption contrary to those findings and then frame questions that proceed on that assumption. Interference with pure findings of fact is impermissible unless those findings are shown to be perverse or vitiated by non-reading or misreading of evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court acted beyond the limits of second appellate jurisdiction and its interference with the concurrent findings was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether documents admitted in evidence without objection, including photocopies and account books, could later be excluded as inadmissible, and whether the evidence proved title to the suit property and invalidity of the tenant's attornment to the temple.

Analysis: An objection going to the admissibility of a document must be taken at the time it is tendered; where the objection concerns only mode of proof, failure to object amounts to waiver. Regularly kept account books and accompanying entries, corroborated by oral evidence, can be acted upon under the law of evidence. Municipal entries do not by themselves prove title, but they may support possession and conduct consistent with ownership. A tenant inducted by one landlord cannot validly attorn to another during the subsistence of the original tenancy, and such attornment is hit by estoppel.

Conclusion: The evidence was rightly relied upon by the courts below, the temple failed to establish title, the tenant's attornment to the temple was invalid, and the appellant proved entitlement to possession and arrears of rent.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the appellant was restored because the appeal below was wrongly allowed on an erroneous reappraisal of evidence and on an incorrect exclusion of admitted documents.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be disturbed in the absence of a genuine substantial question of law, and a timely objection is required to challenge only the mode of proof of documents already admitted in evidence.

---