Second appeal limits under Section 100 CPC bar reappreciation of evidence and interference with factual findings on title.

In second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and disturb a first appellate court's finding of fact on title merely because another view is possible. Where the first appellate court's conclusion rests on documentary, oral, and circumstantial evidence, interference is confined to substantial questions of law, not a fresh evaluation of the same material as in first appeal. The Court held that the High Court acted without jurisdiction in overturning the factual finding, and the decree was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could reappreciate the evidence and interfere with the first appellate court's finding of fact on title under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The finding on title recorded by the first appellate court was based on an appreciation of documentary, oral, and circumstantial evidence. The High Court, however, re-examined the same evidence as if it were hearing a first appeal, drew its own conclusions on the genuineness and effect of the documents, and displaced the concurrent factual findings. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure confines second appeal to questions of law and does not permit interference with a pure finding of fact, even if another view of the evidence is possible.

Conclusion: The High Court acted without jurisdiction in disturbing the finding of fact in second appeal; its decree was set aside and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court cannot, in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interfere with a finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court on an appreciation of evidence merely because it takes a different view of that evidence.

---