Second appeal requires a substantial question of law; factual findings and possession relief cannot be reopened by reappraisal of evidence.

A second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only on a properly formulated substantial question of law, and the High Court cannot reopen concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated that jurisdiction in second appeal depends on that statutory threshold, and interference is not justified unless the findings are perverse, ignore material evidence, or rest on an erroneous legal principle. The Court also noted that recovery of possession must satisfy title, possession and limitation requirements; where the defendant is in possession and the suit is not shown to be within time, possession cannot be granted merely because title is declared.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could entertain and decide the second appeals in the absence of a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in granting recovery of possession of the suit property despite the first appellate court's findings on title, possession, and limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain and decide the second appeals in the absence of a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law. The existence of such a question is a jurisdictional requirement and the High Court must formulate it before hearing the appeal. A mere question of law, or a reappreciation of facts and evidence, does not satisfy the statutory threshold. Concurrent findings of fact ordinarily cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless they suffer from perversity, disregard of material evidence, or erroneous application of settled legal principles.

Conclusion: The High Court lacked jurisdiction to allow the second appeals without a properly framed and sustainable substantial question of law.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in granting recovery of possession of the suit property despite the first appellate court's findings on title, possession, and limitation.

Analysis: The first appellate court had found, on the basis of title documents and evidence, that the parties were owners of different portions of the property and that the respondent had failed to prove a landlord-tenant relationship. The claim for possession had also to satisfy the law of limitation, and a suit for recovery of immovable property is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. Where the defendant is admittedly in possession and the plaint does not show that the suit is within time, possession cannot be granted as a matter of course merely because title is declared. The High Court, by treating the matter as if a substantial question of law existed, reappreciated facts and interfered with a reasoned finding without legal justification.

Conclusion: The grant of recovery of possession by the High Court was unsustainable and had to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's interference with the first appellate court's decree was annulled, and the decree of the first appellate court stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, the High Court can interfere only when a genuine substantial question of law arises from the case and has been properly formulated; it cannot overturn reasoned findings of fact or grant relief on a mere reappraisal of evidence or on a question barred by limitation.

---