Second appeal limits under Section 100 CPC: no reappreciation of evidence, and substantial questions of law must be formulated.

In second appeals, jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law, and the High Court must formulate those questions, give notice where a new question is taken up, and provide a fair opportunity to respond. It cannot dispose of the appeal without observing this statutory discipline under Section 100 CPC. It also cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings of the first appellate court merely because another view is possible; such findings may be disturbed only when a substantial question of law arises. The impugned judgment was set aside and the lower appellate decree restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could dispose of the second appeal without properly adhering to the discipline of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including formulation and notice of substantial questions of law; (ii) whether the High Court could reappreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court.

Issue (i): whether the High Court could dispose of the second appeal without properly adhering to the discipline of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including formulation and notice of substantial questions of law.

Analysis: In a second appeal, jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law. The High Court is required to formulate such questions and, where a new substantial question is later taken up, record reasons and afford the opposite side a fair opportunity to meet it. A hearing conducted without observing this statutory discipline is contrary to the scheme of Section 100 and offends the requirement of fair hearing.

Conclusion: The High Court acted illegally and beyond jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding the second appeal without proper compliance with Section 100.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court could reappreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court.

Analysis: The first appellate court had reached factual conclusions on title and possession on the basis of evidence. In second appeal, the High Court cannot undertake a roving reappraisal of evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. Findings of fact based on evidence by the final court of fact cannot be disturbed unless a substantial question of law arises.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reassessing the evidence and interfering with the findings of fact.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the decree of the lower appellate court was restored, leaving the appellants entitled to succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, interference is permissible only on a substantial question of law duly formulated, with notice and opportunity where required, and the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset factual findings of the first appellate court.

---