Second appeal limits under Section 100 CPC bar interference with concurrent factual findings absent a substantial question of law.

Section 100 CPC confines second appellate jurisdiction to substantial questions of law, and such a question is a condition precedent to interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not reappreciate evidence or upset concurrent findings of fact on bona fide requirement as if hearing a first appeal, especially when no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity was shown. Because the High Court failed to properly address the formulated legal question, its judgment could not stand; the appeal was allowed and the eviction suit remained dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a substantial question of law.

Analysis: Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law. The existence of such a question is a condition precedent for entertaining and deciding the appeal. The High Court reversed concurrent findings on bona fide requirement without properly addressing the formulated question of law and treated the matter as if it were a first appeal. The findings of the two courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and there was no perversity, illegality, or irregularity shown to justify interference.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact in second appeal, and its judgment could not be sustained. The appeal succeeded and was allowed, with the eviction suit standing dismissed.

---