Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining and allowing the second appeal without any substantial question of law, and in reappreciating findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court.
Analysis: A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lies only on a substantial question of law. The High Court cannot interfere merely by re-evaluating evidence or upsetting factual findings unless the case falls within recognised exceptions such as absence of evidence, ignoring material evidence, drawing perversely wrong inferences, or misapplying settled legal principles. On the record, the first appellate court had analysed the oral and documentary evidence and had reached a reasoned finding on adoption. No ignored material evidence, no perversity, and no legally sustainable substantial question of law were shown to exist in the second appeal.
Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction in second appeal; its judgment could not be sustained, and the first appellate court's decree was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, interference is permissible only when a substantial question of law arises, and concurrent or appellate findings of fact cannot be disturbed by mere reappreciation of evidence.