Second appeal jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to a formulated substantial question of law, not reappraisal of facts.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confines second appellate jurisdiction to cases involving a duly formulated substantial question of law. The High Court must state that question in the memorandum or at admission and hear the appeal on that basis; it cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact merely because another view is possible. As the concurrent findings upholding the Will were based on evidence and no substantial question of law was framed, the High Court's interference was unjustified and the second appeal should not have been entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below without formulating and deciding a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended in 1976, confines the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law. The memorandum of appeal must precisely state such question, the High Court must formulate it at admission, and the appeal must thereafter be heard on that formulated question. Interference with pure findings of fact, or reappreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible, lies outside the permissible scope of second appellate jurisdiction. The concurrent findings below upholding the Will were based on evidence, and no substantial question of law had been framed either in the memorandum of appeal or by the High Court.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the concurrent factual findings was not justified, and the second appeal ought not to have been entertained or decided in the absence of a formulated substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating evidence unless the case involves and is decided upon a duly formulated substantial question of law.

---