Second appeal jurisdiction limited to substantial questions of law; factual reappraisal without such question is impermissible.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure confines second appellate jurisdiction to substantial questions of law, and the High Court must decide the questions framed at admission unless it records reasons for additional questions. A substantial question of law must be debatable, unsettled, and material to the parties' rights; a new point cannot normally be raised for the first time in second appeal. Reappreciation of evidence to disturb concurrent findings of fact is impermissible unless perversity, no evidence, or misreading is shown. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing facts without deciding the formulated questions, so its judgment could not stand and the decrees of the courts below were restored.

---

---

Issues: 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 without deciding the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission, and whether any substantial question of law arose on the facts of the case.

Analysis: Section 100 restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court to substantial questions of law, and the appeal must be heard on the questions so formulated, subject only to the limited power to frame additional substantial questions for recorded reasons. A point of law is substantial only if it is debatable, not settled, and has a material bearing on the rights of the parties. It must arise from the pleadings and sustainable findings of fact, and an entirely new point cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time in second appeal. The High Court did not decide the questions framed at admission and instead reassessed the evidence to reach different factual conclusions. Such interference was impermissible in the absence of a finding that the courts below had recorded perverse findings based on no evidence or misreading of evidence. No additional substantial question of law was formulated or reasons recorded for doing so.

Conclusion: The High Court acted beyond the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and its judgment in second appeal could not stand. The appeal was rightly allowed by restoring the decrees of the courts below.

Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirms that second appellate jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit a fresh factual reappraisal unless perversity or a legally sustainable substantial question is shown.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court cannot disturb findings of fact by reappreciating evidence unless it identifies and decides a substantial question of law, or records reasons while formulating an additional such question.

---