Second appeal jurisdiction and mortgage ratification: legal inference from found facts sustained, but no personal liability without clear assent.

In second appeal, the court may examine the legal effect of facts found by the lower appellate court, but not reappraise those facts themselves; on that basis, jurisdiction was upheld because the challenge concerned legal inference rather than factual dispute. On liability, mere knowledge of a mortgage or statements that the debt was repayable did not amount to ratification or a binding agreement by Daud Rao, where the mortgage was not executed in his name or on his behalf. He was therefore not made liable for the whole mortgage debt or subjected to foreclosure against his share, save to the limited extent accepted by the Judicial Commissioner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Judicial Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, where the challenge was directed to the legal effect of the facts found by the lower appellate court. (ii) Whether Daud Rao had ratified, or was otherwise bound by, the mortgage executed by his mother so as to make him liable for the debt and subject his share in the village to foreclosure.

Issue (i): The statutory scheme of second appeals confined interference to specified grounds of law, failure to determine a material issue of law or usage, or substantial procedural error. Findings of fact by the lower appellate court were not open to reappraisal in a second appeal, but the legal correctness of the conclusions drawn from those facts remained within jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Judicial Commissioner had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, since the controversy turned on the legal effect of facts found and not on a challenge to the facts themselves.

Issue (ii): Mere knowledge of the mortgage and statements that money due under it was repayable did not amount to an agreement by Daud Rao to be bound by an obligation not executed on his behalf. As the mortgage was not made in his name or on his behalf, there was no question of ratification in law, and no sufficient basis existed to infer that he had become liable for the entire mortgage debt or that a charge enforceable against his share had arisen by mere conduct or admission.

Conclusion: Daud Rao was not bound by the mortgage executed by his mother, except to the limited extent of the amount specifically accepted by the Judicial Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the decree of the Judicial Commissioner, as limiting liability and rejecting the broader claim against Daud Rao, was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, the court may examine the legal effect of facts found, but a person is not bound by a mortgage executed by another unless there is a clear agreement or legally effective ratification establishing personal liability.

---