Substantial question of law requirement under second appeal procedure: High Court must formulate it before hearing, and give reasoned review of reversal findings.

Section 100 CPC confines a second appeal to a substantial question of law, which must be specifically stated, identified by the High Court, and formulated before hearing, subject only to the limited power to consider another such question for recorded reasons. The High Court was therefore not justified in dismissing the second appeal summarily without following that requirement. A first appellate court, though final on facts, must give reasoned consideration when reversing the trial court, particularly on possession, adverse possession and limitation. Because the reversal was brief and did not adequately engage with the trial court's findings, the matter required reconsideration on a properly formulated substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be dismissed without identifying and formulating a substantial question of law; and (ii) whether the first appellate court, while reversing the trial court, had properly addressed the adverse possession and limitation findings.

Issue (i): Whether a second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be dismissed without identifying and formulating a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The amended section 100 restricts second appellate jurisdiction to cases involving a substantial question of law, and the appellant must precisely state such question in the memorandum of appeal. The High Court must satisfy itself that such a question arises and formulate it before hearing the appeal, subject to the limited power to consider another substantial question of law for recorded reasons. A second appeal cannot be heard or rejected as if the formulation requirement were optional.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in dismissing the second appeal summarily without dealing with the substantial question of law in the manner required by section 100.

Issue (ii): Whether the first appellate court, while reversing the trial court, had properly addressed the adverse possession and limitation findings.

Analysis: A first appellate court is the final court on facts, but when it reverses the trial court it must engage with the trial court's reasoning and give its own reasons. The material on record showed that the trial court had given detailed findings on possession, dispossession, adverse possession, and limitation, whereas the first appellate court reversed those findings in a brief manner without sufficient discussion. The substantial question framed for consideration therefore arose from the pleadings and the record.

Conclusion: The reversal by the first appellate court required reconsideration by the High Court on a properly formulated substantial question of law.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh hearing of the second appeal in accordance with section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with the legal questions left open for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law that is specifically identified and formulated, and an appellate court reversing the trial court must give reasoned consideration to the findings under challenge.

---