Second appeal limits on reappreciating evidence: concurrent findings of fact cannot be reversed outside Section 100 CPC.

In a second appeal, the High Court cannot reappraise oral evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact merely by labelling them perverse. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confines interference to the narrow limits of second appellate jurisdiction, and those limits were exceeded when the High Court undertook a fresh evaluation of evidence. The concurrent factual findings of the trial court and first appellate court therefore could not be reopened, and the reversal of those findings was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in a second appeal, was justified in reappraising the evidence and reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below.

Analysis: Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 limits interference in second appeal. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court could not be reopened by a fresh evaluation of oral evidence merely by describing those findings as perverse. The High Court exceeded the permissible scope of second appellate jurisdiction by undertaking such reappreciation.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reappraising the evidence or disturbing the concurrent findings of fact; the reversal of the findings could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be reappraised or reversed except within the narrow confines of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---