Second appeal limits on fact findings: High Court cannot reappreciate evidence absent a substantial question of law.

In second appeal, findings of fact on a landlord's bona fide personal requirement, based on appreciation of pleadings and testimony, cannot be disturbed by reappreciation of evidence unless the High Court identifies a substantial question of law or the findings are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. The SC held that the High Court exceeded the limits of Section 100 CPC by substituting its own view without framing such a question, so the challenge to the eviction decree failed and the first appellate court's decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere with the first appellate court's findings on bona fide personal requirement under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the absence of a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The first appellate court had recorded findings on the landlord's reasonable and bona fide need after appreciating the evidence, including the pleadings and supporting testimony. In second appeal, the High Court reappreciated the evidence and substituted its own view without framing or identifying any substantial question of law. Such interference is not permissible under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which confines the High Court to substantial questions of law and does not permit reversal of fact findings merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in disturbing the first appellate court's findings, and the challenge to the eviction decree failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the first appellate court's decree was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, findings of fact based on evidence cannot be reversed by reappreciation of evidence unless they are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or involve a substantial question of law.

---