Restricted second appeal cannot reopen factual findings where statute limits interference to specified legal grounds.

In a statutorily restricted second appeal, the High Court could interfere only on the legal grounds expressly permitted by the governing tenancy law and civil procedure, not by reappraising evidence on factual matters. The dispute before the lower appellate court concerned the character and measurement of the lands, which were essentially questions of fact. By substituting its own view of the evidence without identifying a qualifying legal or jurisdictional error, the High Court exceeded its authority. The District Judge's decree was therefore restored and the High Court's decrees were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in second appeal under the Bengal Tenancy Act read with the Code of Civil Procedure, could reverse the District Judge's decree by re-examining the evidence and findings on the character and measurement of the lands.

Analysis: The appeal lay within a limited statutory framework, confining interference to cases where the decision was contrary to specified law or usage, or where some material issue of law or usage had not been determined. The controversy before the District Judge turned on the character of the lands and the proper standard of measurement, matters which were essentially factual. The reasons given by the High Court showed dissatisfaction with the District Judge's appreciation of the evidence and an attempt to substitute its own view of the facts, rather than the identification of any jurisdictional or legal error within the statutory grounds of second appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the District Judge on matters of fact, and its decrees were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The decrees of the District Judge were restored because the High Court had no authority to disturb the factual findings in the manner adopted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a statutorily restricted second appeal, a court cannot reverse concurrent or appellate findings merely because it would have assessed the evidence differently; interference is confined to the legal grounds expressly permitted by the governing statute.

---