Second appeal limits under Section 100 CPC prevent reappreciation of evidence and review beyond framed substantial questions of law.

In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating evidence unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in disturbing findings that the disputed properties were self-acquired and not joint family properties. It also ruled that, without a framed substantial question of law, the High Court could not examine the genuineness or validity of the settlement deed and will. The High Court's decree was set aside and the first appellate court's decree restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could reverse concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating evidence and hold that the disputed properties were joint family properties. (ii) Whether the High Court could examine the genuineness and validity of the settlement deed and will without a substantial question of law having been framed on those matters.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could reverse concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating evidence and hold that the disputed properties were joint family properties.

Analysis: Section 100 confines the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings recorded by the courts below on the character of the properties could not be displaced merely by reappreciation of evidence unless the findings were shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The properties in question had been treated throughout as self-acquired properties and were not included in the earlier family partition. The High Court therefore exceeded the limits of second appellate jurisdiction in upsetting those factual findings.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact on the nature of the properties, and its contrary finding was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could examine the genuineness and validity of the settlement deed and will without a substantial question of law having been framed on those matters.

Analysis: The parties had not put the genuineness or due execution of the settlement deed and will in issue in the pleadings, evidence, or memorandum of second appeal, and no substantial question of law had been framed on those aspects. Under Section 100, the High Court could decide only the questions formulated, or any additional substantial question of law specifically framed with recorded reasons. In the absence of such framing, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to go into those matters.

Conclusion: The High Court could not lawfully decide the validity or genuineness of the settlement deed and will, and its findings on those questions could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decree was set aside, and the decree of the first appellate court was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law is framed and the finding is perverse; it also cannot decide issues beyond the framed substantial question of law.

---