Second appeal limits under Section 100 CPC bar reappreciation of evidence against concurrent findings of fact.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a second appeal only where a substantial question of law arises. The Supreme Court stated that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings of fact on title and possession on a purely factual reassessment. Findings recorded by the trial and first appellate courts cannot be disturbed in second appeal merely because another view of the evidence is possible. The effect is that interference with concurrent factual findings is impermissible absent a question of law, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in a second appeal, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating the evidence in the absence of a question of law.

Analysis: A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies only where a question of law arises. The High Court had reversed the findings recorded by the courts below on purely factual considerations and had reassessed the evidence to reach a different view on title and possession. Such interference was beyond the permissible scope of second appellate jurisdiction, because the High Court cannot upset findings of fact merely on a different appraisal of evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted and the appeal succeeded.

---