Second appeal interference limited by perversity review where cheque presumption remained unrebutted and cash payment defence failed.

Concurrent findings in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC may be disturbed only if they are perverse or based on misreading of evidence, and the record here disclosed no such infirmity. The suit for recovery was founded on a dishonoured cheque, while the defence of prior cash payment was undermined by contradictions in the defendant's evidence on the payee's identity and the circumstances of payment. As no documentary proof supported the plea of discharge, the statutory presumption attached to the cheque remained unrebutted, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below suffered from perversity or misreading of evidence so as to justify interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a suit for recovery based on a dishonoured cheque and a defence that the amount had already been paid in cash. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witness supported issuance of the cheque and non-payment, while the defence evidence contained material contradictions on the identity of the payee and the circumstances of alleged cash payment. No documentary evidence was produced by the defendant to support the plea of payment, and the statutory presumption attached to the cheque remained unrebutted. In second appeal, interference is permissible only when the concurrent findings are shown to be perverse, and the record did not disclose any such infirmity.

Conclusion: The findings of the courts below were not perverse and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

---