Second appeal procedure requires prior notice for new substantial questions of law before upsetting concurrent findings of fact.

In a second appeal, a High Court must formulate substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC and, if it proposes a new question later, give the parties prior notice and a fair opportunity of hearing. Framing and deciding an additional question at dictation stage without reasons or notice offends the statutory scheme and fairness. The Court also cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a properly formulated substantial question of law truly justifies interference. The High Court's reversal, based on an erroneous factual premise and without addressing the questions framed at admission, was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in a second appeal, could frame an additional substantial question of law at the stage of dictation and decide the appeal without giving prior notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. (ii) Whether the High Court could reverse the concurrent findings of fact without dealing with the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission and without a proper legal foundation for the new question.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in a second appeal, could frame an additional substantial question of law at the stage of dictation and decide the appeal without giving prior notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law and, ordinarily, to decide the second appeal on that basis. If a new question is to be framed later, the parties must be put on notice and given a fair opportunity to meet it. Framing a new question without recording reasons and without reasonable opportunity of hearing offends the statutory scheme and fairness in adjudication.

Conclusion: The additional substantial question of law could not be validly framed and decided in the manner adopted by the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could reverse the concurrent findings of fact without dealing with the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission and without a proper legal foundation for the new question.

Analysis: In second appeal, interference with findings of fact is confined to cases where a substantial question of law truly arises. The High Court did not address the questions framed at admission and proceeded on an erroneous premise regarding the generations of the parties and the nature of the property. The reversal was thus founded on a non-existent basis and lacked the required legal justification.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings in the manner it did.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing on any question proposed to be framed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, any substantial question of law framed later must be preceded by notice and a fair opportunity of hearing, and the High Court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact except on a properly formulated and legally sustainable substantial question of law.

---