Substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC absent where concurrent factual findings on structural alterations barred second appeal

A second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only where a substantial question of law arises. Where the courts below have recorded concurrent findings based on evidence, including findings on structural alterations, lowering of floor level and removal of pillars to widen the frontage, those conclusions are pure findings of fact or at most mixed questions of law and fact. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose for interference. The refusal to interfere with the decree of injunction was therefore sustained, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second appeal involved any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The findings recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and were either pure findings of fact or, at the highest, mixed questions of law and fact. The factual conclusions included that structural alterations were made to the premises, the floor level was lowered, and pillars were removed to create a wider frontage. On those findings, no substantial question of law arose for consideration in second appeal.

Conclusion: The second appeal did not involve any substantial question of law, and dismissal of the second appeal was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the judgment refusing interference with the decree of injunction was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies only where a substantial question of law arises, and concurrent findings of fact, or findings that are merely mixed questions of law and fact, do not justify interference.

---