Second appeal limits on factual interference: findings supporting specific performance were restored and High Court reversal set aside.

In second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb reasoned findings of fact unless a jurisdictional ground is shown, such as a decision contrary to law, an undetermined material issue of law or custom, or a substantial procedural defect affecting the merits. The first appellate court's findings that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform, earnest money had been paid, and the defendants had acted on the transaction were therefore not open to reversal merely because another view was possible. The decree for specific performance was restored, with the plaintiff's appearance on the next working day after a Sunday performance date also supporting enforcement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and deny specific performance of the agreement to sell.

Analysis: The scope of second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is treated as analogous to the pre-1976 regime under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Interference is permissible only where the decision is contrary to law, a material issue of law or custom has not been determined, or there is a substantial procedural defect affecting the merits. Erroneous findings of fact, including findings based on documentary evidence, do not furnish a ground for reversal. The first appellate court had recorded factual findings that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract, that earnest money had been paid, and that the defendants could not disclaim knowledge of the plaintiff's attorney arrangement after accepting payment and acting upon the transaction. The High Court, therefore, could not substitute its own view merely because it considered another view preferable. The performance date fell on a Sunday, so the next working day became relevant by operation of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the plaintiff's appearance with balance consideration on that date supported enforcement of the decree.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact in second appeal, and the decree for specific performance was restored in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's interference was set aside, and the decree granting specific performance was revived with consequential directions for payment of the balance sale consideration and execution of the sale deed.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent or reasoned findings of fact unless a jurisdictional ground specified in the provision is made out.

---