Second appeal jurisdiction limited to substantial questions of law; factual findings cannot be reappraised without framing them.

In a second appeal, the High Court's jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC. It cannot reassess concurrent factual findings, such as the genuineness of a will, as if hearing a first appeal unless it first frames and decides a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court held that interference with findings of fact in this manner exceeds the limited scope of Section 100 CPC, so the High Court's order was unsustainable and the second appeal was restored for reconsideration within the correct legal limits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could interfere with concurrent factual findings without framing and deciding a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis: The jurisdiction in second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law. The High Court, while setting aside the appellate court's finding on the genuineness of the will, proceeded as if it were hearing a first appeal and reassessed the evidence without first framing a substantial question of law. Such an approach exceeded the limited scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Conclusion: The High Court's order could not be sustained and was set aside, with the second appeal restored for reconsideration strictly within the parameters of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, interference with findings of fact is impermissible unless the appeal involves and is decided on a substantial question of law.

---