Second appeal limits under Section 100 CPC: unformulated questions of law cannot justify setting aside factual findings.

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court may interfere only on a formulated substantial question of law, and any additional question must be taken up for recorded reasons. Here, the only framed question concerned a minor change in land description after consolidation, but no substantial question was framed on the first appellate court's finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove readiness and willingness. As no reasons were recorded for entering that issue and the factual findings were not specifically shown to be erroneous, the High Court could not set aside the entire decree on an unformulated ground. The High Court's judgment was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court could set aside the first appellate court's judgment in its entirety without formulating a substantial question of law on the finding regarding readiness and willingness and without recording reasons for hearing any additional question.

Analysis: Section 100(5) permits the High Court to hear an appeal only on the question formulated, and if it proposes to consider any other substantial question of law, it must record reasons for doing so. The only question framed by the High Court concerned the effect of a minor change in area or description of the land after consolidation proceedings. No question was framed on the first appellate court's finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove readiness and willingness, and no reasons were recorded for entering upon that aspect. The High Court could, therefore, answer the framed question, but it could not overturn the entire first appellate decree on an unformulated issue. The High Court also did not demonstrate, with specific reference to the record, how the first appellate court's factual findings were erroneous.

Conclusion: The second appeal could not be allowed to the extent it disturbed findings on an issue not formulated as a substantial question of law and not taken up with recorded reasons; the High Court's judgment was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the High Court exceeded the limits of second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in interfering with findings not covered by a formulated substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court cannot disturb findings of fact or set aside the entire decree unless the relevant substantial question of law is formulated, or any additional question is taken up only for recorded reasons as required by Section 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---