Substantial questions of law must be answered with reasons in second appeal; inadequate treatment justified remand for fresh consideration.

A second appeal under Section 100 CPC requires the High Court to expressly and substantively answer each framed substantial question of law with reasons, or modify the questions after hearing the parties. Merely noting the questions and making limited observations is not sufficient. Where later confirmation deeds, the appellants' claimed purchaser interest, and the plea of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act may affect the parties' rights, those matters must be examined before final disposal. The judgment was set aside and the second appeal restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court, in second appeal, had properly dealt with and answered the substantial questions of law framed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the matter required reconsideration in view of the appellants' claim as purchasers and the effect of the subsequent confirmation deeds and the plea relating to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Issue (i): whether the High Court, in second appeal, had properly dealt with and answered the substantial questions of law framed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;

Analysis: The substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were required to be answered one way or the other with reasons. Merely noticing the questions and recording limited observations without dealing with the contentions in a structured manner did not amount to proper adjudication under Section 100. The requirement was to examine the framed questions, indicate the reasoning, and return findings on each question, or modify the questions after hearing the parties if necessary.

Conclusion: The High Court did not appropriately answer the substantial questions of law.

Issue (ii): whether the matter required reconsideration in view of the appellants' claim as purchasers and the effect of the subsequent confirmation deeds and the plea relating to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The appellants had sought leave in the second appeal on the basis of their asserted interest in the property, and the record showed later confirmation deeds executed after the trial judgment but before disposal of the first appeal. The effect of those deeds on the parties' rights, the extent of the property covered, and the impact on the plea of lis pendens required examination. If necessary, the High Court could also consider additional substantial questions or remit the matter for further evidence.

Conclusion: The matter required reconsideration by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the second appeal was restored to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court must expressly and substantively answer the framed substantial questions of law with reasons; failure to do so warrants remand for reconsideration, especially where subsequent documents may affect the parties' rights.

---