Second appeal and special leave discretion limit interference with factual findings; equity can justify compensation over demolition.

A second appeal cannot be used to disturb a pure finding of fact or reappreciate evidence unless a substantial question of law is first framed under Section 100 CPC; the High Court's interference with the appellate court's finding on the genuineness of the alleged agreement was therefore unsustainable. The Court also noted that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 remains available even after special leave is granted, so relief may be refused or moulded on equitable considerations. Because the encroachment had existed for years and demolition was not considered warranted, the decree was left substantially undisturbed and compensation based on the value of the occupied land was directed instead.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with a pure finding of fact and without framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether, after grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court was bound to interfere on merits or could decline interference and mould the relief on equitable considerations.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with a pure finding of fact and without framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The appellate court had recorded a reasoned finding on the genuineness of the alleged 1962 agreement on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, including the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances. The High Court interfered without first framing a substantial question of law and reappreciated the finding on genuineness, which was not permissible where the finding was supported by material and did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in second appeal and its interference with the finding of fact was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, after grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court was bound to interfere on merits or could decline interference and mould the relief on equitable considerations.

Analysis: The discretionary power under Article 136 continues even after special leave is granted, and the Court may refuse interference if the facts do not justify it. Here, the plaintiff knew of the alleged encroachment for years, did not promptly seek injunctive relief, and the constructions had existed for a long period. In those circumstances, the Court considered that demolition of the rooms was not warranted and that compensation would be an adequate remedy. The Court also modified the decree by directing payment of the value of the land in occupation and remitted the matter for valuation.

Conclusion: The Court declined to disturb the decree of dismissal of the suit for possession, but granted an equitable monetary relief by requiring payment of the land value.

Final Conclusion: The legal error committed by the High Court was declared, but the decree was not interfered with in substance because equity and long possession justified declining demolition and substituting compensation for the occupied land.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, interference with a finding of fact is impermissible without a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may be exercised to refuse or mould relief even after special leave is granted where the equities of the case so require.

---