Concurrent findings of fact in second appeal cannot be reversed by reappreciation of evidence absent a real substantial question of law.

In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by reappreciation of evidence unless a real substantial question of law arises under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court and first appellate court had concurrently held that adverse possession was not proved, and the High Court was not entitled to reverse those findings merely on reassessment of the documentary and oral evidence. The Supreme Court held that no genuine substantial question of law arose and set aside the High Court's judgment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact in second appeal by reappreciating the evidence, and whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Analysis: The trial court and the first appellate court had, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, concurrently found that the plea of adverse possession was not established. The substantial question admitted by the High Court turned on the evidentiary effect of documents relied upon by the plaintiff and did not disclose a genuine substantial question of law. In second appeal, the High Court was not entitled to disturb concurrent findings of fact merely by reassessing the evidence, since the scope of interference is confined by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact and in entertaining the matter as involving a substantial question of law. The appeal was therefore allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be reversed by reappreciation of evidence unless the case involves a real substantial question of law within the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---