Second appeal interference limited to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings upheld where no perversity was shown.

Interference in second appeal is limited to a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, and factual findings may be disturbed only if shown to be perverse or based on non-consideration of material evidence. On the record, the retained land in Dag No. 59 remained distinct from the ceiling-surplus land allotted elsewhere, and the appellant failed to establish that the disputed house stood on the allotted land. The revenue evidence did not support the claim that the suit premises formed part of the defendant's allotment, so the concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse. Interference was therefore unwarranted and the finding of unauthorized occupation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings that the suit premises formed part of the plaintiff's retained land and that the defendant was a trespasser suffered from perversity or non-consideration of material evidence so as to warrant interference in second appeal.

Analysis: The scope of interference in second appeal is confined to a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, though interference may still be justified where findings are vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by an erroneous approach. On the evidence, the land retained by the plaintiff in Dag No. 59 remained distinct from the ceiling-surplus land later allotted in other dag numbers, and the portion relied upon by the appellant did not establish that the disputed house stood on the allotted land. The evidence of the revenue witness did not support the inference that the suit premises formed part of the land allotted to the defendant, and the concurrent factual findings were not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: Interference in second appeal was not warranted, and the finding that the defendant was in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises was upheld.

---