Second appeal jurisdiction is limited: factual findings stand unless a substantial procedural defect under Section 100 CPC is shown.

In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, findings of fact may be disturbed only for a substantial error or defect in procedure, not for mere erroneous appreciation of evidence. A failure to discuss every reason given by the trial court, or a less detailed appellate judgment, does not itself amount to such a defect. Because the dispute depended on factual issues concerning the validity and binding nature of the release deed, and the lower appellate court had decided those issues on evidence, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappraising those findings and reversing the decree.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with the lower appellate court's findings of fact on the ground of procedural defect under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The jurisdiction in second appeal is confined to the grounds specified by Section 100. An erroneous finding of fact, however gross, is not by itself a procedural defect. Interference is warranted only where the lower appellate court has committed a substantial error or defect in procedure, such as deciding on a wrong burden, ignoring a material issue, excluding admissible evidence, or introducing a new case not pleaded. A mere failure to discuss every reason given by the trial court, or a less elaborate appellate judgment, does not amount to such a defect. The dispute here turned on pure questions of fact relating to the validity and binding nature of the release deed, and the lower appellate court's conclusion was based on appreciation of the evidence. The High Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction in reappraising those findings.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the lower appellate court's findings of fact in second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless the appellant demonstrates a substantial error or defect in procedure within Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure; mere erroneous appreciation of evidence or an inadequately reasoned appellate judgment is insufficient.

---