Second appeal procedure and adverse possession: non-framing of a legal question caused no prejudice, while hostile possession was not proved.

Non-framing of a substantial question of law under Section 100(4) CPC does not, by itself, invalidate a second appellate judgment; the decisive test is whether the omission caused prejudice, and where the real controversy was fully understood and both sides had opportunity to adduce evidence, the decision is not vitiated. The plea of adverse possession must still satisfy hostile, open and continuous possession, reflected in nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, and the defendant failed to establish those ingredients on the facts found. The High Court's view rejecting adverse possession was therefore upheld, and the decree was restored in substance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second appeal was liable to be set aside merely because no substantial question of law had been framed under Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the absence of prejudice to the appellant. (ii) Whether the defendant had established title by adverse possession.

Issue (i): Non-framing of a substantial question of law does not, by itself, render a second appellate judgment void or liable to automatic interference. The decisive consideration is whether the omission has caused prejudice to the party challenging the judgment. Where both sides were aware of the real controversy and had full opportunity to lead evidence, the omission is treated as a procedural defect that does not vitiate the decision.

Conclusion: The absence of a formally framed substantial question of law did not warrant setting aside the High Court's judgment, as no prejudice was shown.

Issue (ii): A plea of adverse possession must satisfy the settled ingredients of hostile, open, and continuous possession, commonly expressed as nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. On the facts found, those ingredients were not established by the defendant, and the High Court's view rejecting adverse possession was affirmed.

Conclusion: The defendant failed to prove adverse possession, and the finding was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected on merits, with the High Court's decree restored in substance and the appellants being granted time to vacate the premises.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal is not automatically vitiated by failure to frame a substantial question of law if the omission causes no prejudice, and a plea of adverse possession must be proved by clear satisfaction of its essential ingredients.

---