Second appeal limits on fact review barred remand where adverse possession and title were already established on the evidence.

In second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is confined to substantial questions of law; reappreciation of evidence to overturn findings on title and adverse possession, followed by a remand, is beyond jurisdiction. The factual record showed continuous, open and hostile possession by the plaintiff and his father for the requisite period, with municipal knowledge and no effective eviction steps, which was sufficient to establish title by adverse possession and prescription. The remand order and all proceedings based on it were therefore void, and the plaintiff's title should not have been disturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could reverse concurrent findings of fact on title and adverse possession and remand the matter under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the plaintiff had established title by adverse possession and prescription.

Issue (i): The jurisdiction in second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court cannot be upset merely because the High Court takes a different view of the evidence. A remand based on reversal of such concurrent findings, without displacing the factual reasons recorded by the courts below, is beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact or to remand the case on that basis.

Issue (ii): The evidence showed continuous, open and hostile possession by the plaintiff and his father for the requisite period, with knowledge of the municipality and without effective steps for eviction. Adverse possession does not require concealment or proof of actual knowledge beyond open hostile occupation.

Conclusion: The plaintiff had established title by adverse possession and prescription.

Final Conclusion: The remand order and all proceedings founded on it were void, and the plaintiff's suit stood decreed on the footing that the plaintiff's title and adverse possession had been wrongly disturbed by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact, and a remand founded on such impermissible interference is without jurisdiction.

---