Concurrent findings can still raise a substantial question of law where they are legally unsustainable in second appeal.

In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily respected, but they can still raise a substantial question of law if recorded de hors the pleadings, on no evidence, by misreading material evidence, or in violation of law. The Court noted that issues concerning the character of the suit land, the application of forest and revenue laws, the validity of the mining lease, and any statutory bar required examination under Section 100 CPC. The High Court was therefore not justified in summarily dismissing the second appeals, and the matters were remitted for fresh decision after framing appropriate substantial questions of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeals on the ground that no substantial question of law arose; (ii) whether the appeals raised substantial questions of law warranting admission and decision on merits under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeals on the ground that no substantial question of law arose.

Analysis: A concurrent finding of fact is ordinarily respected in second appeal, but it is not immune from scrutiny where the finding is alleged to have been recorded de hors the pleadings, on no evidence, by misreading material evidence, or in violation of law. The mere existence of concurrent findings does not by itself eliminate the possibility of a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in dismissing the second appeals on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals raised substantial questions of law warranting admission and decision on merits under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The record disclosed several questions requiring examination, including the character of the suit land, the applicability of forest and revenue laws, the legality of the mining lease under the governing statutory framework, and whether the suit was barred by any such laws. These issues were substantial questions within the meaning of Section 100 because they were necessary for proper adjudication of the rights of the parties.

Conclusion: The appeals did raise substantial questions of law and the second appeals ought to have been heard on merits.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matters were remitted to the High Court for fresh decision of the second appeals after framing appropriate substantial questions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact may still give rise to a substantial question of law where the findings are shown to be legally unsustainable, and the High Court must frame and decide such questions on merits instead of summarily dismissing the appeal.

---