Second appeal limits on reappreciating evidence: concurrent factual findings cannot be disturbed absent substantial legal error.

In second appeal, the High Court's jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC, so it cannot reappreciate admissible oral and documentary evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact merely because another view appears possible. Where the trial court and first appellate court have recorded concurrent factual findings without legal error, procedural defect, lack of evidence, or perversity, those findings remain final in second appeal. The High Court had exceeded those limits by reassessing the evidence, and its judgment was therefore unsustainable; the concurrent decrees in favour of the appellant were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court in second appeal could interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and first appellate court by reappreciating evidence and treating the findings as perverse.

Analysis: The scope of second appeal is confined by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to substantial questions of law. Findings of fact recorded by the courts below on admissible and relevant evidence are final in second appeal. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence to sustain those findings is not open to reassessment by the High Court. Where concurrent findings are based on oral and documentary evidence and there is no legal error or procedural defect, the High Court cannot substitute its own view merely because it considers another conclusion more probable. Interference on a mere reappraisal of probabilities amounts to acting beyond the limits of second appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court was not entitled to disturb the concurrent findings of fact, and its judgment was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the concurrent decrees in favour of the appellant stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises or the findings are vitiated by legal error, want of evidence, or perversity.

---