Second appeal jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC cannot reopen factual findings without a substantial question of law.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure confines second appeal jurisdiction to a substantial question of law, and the High Court could not reopen concurrent factual findings by reappreciating evidence. The lower appellate court had assessed the surrounding circumstances, suspicious features of the alleged agreement, and its genuineness, and had returned findings of fact against the respondent. As no real substantial question of law was identified, the High Court's interference was unjustified and the factual findings could not be disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with the lower appellate court's findings of fact in the absence of any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Section 100 confines the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law, and the Court found that the impugned interference rested essentially on reassessment of evidence and on questions that were, at best, factual. The lower appellate court had examined the surrounding circumstances, the alleged agreement's suspicious features, and the evidence regarding its genuineness, and had returned findings of fact against the respondent. The High Court, without identifying any real substantial question of law, reopened those factual findings and treated questions of appreciation of evidence as if they were questions of law.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference in second appeal was not justified, and the findings of the lower appellate court could not be disturbed.

---