Concurrent findings of fact in second appeal cannot be upset without a substantial question of law; injunction sustained on possession.

In second appeal, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises. The trial court and first appellate court had found that the plaintiff was in sole possession of the suit property and the defendant failed to prove the alleged Will or allotment. Because title was left open and possession was sufficient to support injunction relief, the High Court acted beyond the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in overturning the decree. The injunction suit was therefore restored and the finding of possession sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact and overturn the decree for injunction protecting the plaintiff's possession.

Analysis: The findings of the trial court and the first appellate court established that the plaintiff was in sole possession of the suit property and that the defendant failed to prove the alleged Will or allotment. In second appeal, the High Court introduced inferences and questioned the evidence without determining any substantial question of law. Such reassessment of factual findings lay outside the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The question of title had in any event been left open, and the only issue necessary for injunction was possession.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact or in dismissing the suit; its interference was legally erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff was restored, and the injunction suit stood revived on the basis of the established finding of possession.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or upset concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a substantial question of law, and an injunction may be sustained on proof of possession even when title remains open.

---