Second appeal interference barred absent substantial question of law where title and possession findings were based on evidence.

Second appeal interference is confined to cases raising a substantial question of law, and a factual finding on title and possession will not be reopened absent perversity. The lower appellate court had assessed the oral and documentary evidence, including revenue records, mutation entries, and admissions in evidence, and its conclusion was supported by that material. No perversity in the factual appraisal was shown, so the High Court was correct in declining interference with the decree.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere in second appeal with the lower appellate court's finding on title and possession in the absence of a substantial question of law or perversity.

Analysis: In second appeal, interference is warranted only when a substantial question of law arises. The lower appellate court's conclusion was based on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, including the jamabandi entries, the mutation endorsement, and the admissions noticed in evidence. The record did not reveal any perversity in that factual assessment, and the High Court was therefore right in declining to reopen the title finding.

Conclusion: The refusal to interfere with the lower appellate court's decree was correct, as no substantial question of law or perversity was shown.

---