Second appeal limits on factual findings: documentary inferences do not justify reversal absent an error of law.

In second appeal, the High Court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are vitiated by an error of law. That restriction applies even where the factual conclusion is drawn from documentary evidence treated as historical material rather than title instruments. A mistaken construction of documents, or an inference from them that appears erroneous, does not by itself convert the issue into a question of law. The High Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to reverse the lower appellate court's factual findings in the absence of a legal error.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in second appeal, the High Court could reverse concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts in the absence of an error of law, including where those findings were based on inferences drawn from documentary evidence.

Analysis: The governing rule under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the High Court has no jurisdiction in second appeal to disturb findings of fact reached by the lower appellate court unless those findings are vitiated by some error of law. That restriction applies equally where the factual conclusion is reached from documentary materials treated as historical evidence rather than instruments of title. A mere mistake in construing documents or inferences drawn from them does not convert a factual question into a question of law so as to justify interference in second appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the lower appellate court's findings of fact, no error of law having been shown.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent or lower appellate findings of fact cannot be reversed merely because they are based on documentary inferences or may appear erroneous; interference is permissible only where the findings are vitiated by an error of law.

---