Second appeal limits on reappreciation of evidence: findings of fact supported by record cannot be displaced by a fresh credibility assessment.

Section 100 CPC limits second appellate interference with concurrent or otherwise supportable findings of fact. The High Court cannot reopen evidence, draw fresh inferences, or substitute its own view on witness credibility where the lower courts' findings are supported by material on record. On the stated findings, the earlier transfers were treated as benami and the decretal amount remained unpaid, so the plaintiff's title and right to possession survived and the suit remained maintainable in his favour. The commentary therefore underlines that reappreciation of evidence is beyond the proper scope of second appeal when findings of fact are sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in second appeal, the High Court could interfere with concurrent or supportable findings of fact on the basis of a reappreciation of evidence, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession on the findings recorded by the first appellate court.

Analysis: Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricts the High Court in second appeal from upsetting findings of fact which are supported by evidence. The first appellate court had accepted findings that the earlier transfers were benami and that the decretal amount had not been paid. The High Court interfered by drawing different inferences from the evidence and by preferring oral testimony rejected by the courts below. Such reappreciation was beyond the permissible scope of second appellate jurisdiction. On the findings of the first appellate court, the plaintiff's title and right to possession survived, and the suit was maintainable in his favour.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the findings of fact was unwarranted, and the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on the basis of the first appellate court's findings.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the decrees of the High Court were displaced in favour of restoration of the earlier decrees, with costs awarded against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, a High Court cannot disturb findings of fact supported by evidence merely by reweighing the evidence or substituting its own view on credibility.

---