Question of fact in second appeal: proof of oral sale and mortgage extinction could not be reopened on evidence assessment alone.

Whether an oral sale extinguishing a mortgage had been proved was treated as a question of fact, not a question of law, because the courts had weighed oral and documentary evidence together with the statutory presumption. Record-of-rights entries under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, were evidentiary material only and not title-deeds or the direct source of rights. In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, interference was not justified merely because a lower court may have drawn an erroneous inference from the evidence. The finding that no sale was proved therefore stood final, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding that no sale had been proved was a pure question of fact and, if so, whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the appellants had discharged the burden of proving an oral sale said to have extinguished the mortgage. The entries in the record-of-rights under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, were relied upon as evidentiary material, but they were not title-deeds or the direct foundation of rights. The Court held that the proper legal effect of proved facts may raise a question of law, but the existence or non-existence of the sale, where both oral and documentary evidence had been weighed and the statutory presumption considered, remained a question of fact. A second appeal does not lie merely because the appellate court may have drawn an erroneous inference from such evidence.

Conclusion: The finding that the sale had not been proved was final, the High Court was right in declining to interfere, and the appeal failed.

---