Second appeal interference is barred absent a substantial question of law; concurrent findings on disputed raasta rights were left undisturbed.

In a second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or give rise to a substantial question of law. The plaintiff's claim to a disputed 10-feet raasta failed because the sale deed only described the eastern boundary as a raasta and did not prove that it had been carved out from the sellers' own land, and no reliable evidence established the asserted right. The High Court therefore held that the burden of proof had not been discharged and that no substantial question of law arose, so the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose in the second appeal so as to justify interference with the concurrent findings that the plaintiff failed to prove a right over the disputed 10-feet raasta and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

Analysis: The sale deed was examined and it only recorded that the property was bounded by a 10-feet raasta on the east. The claim that the eastern raasta had been carved out from the sellers' own land was not borne out by the document and was not otherwise proved by reliable evidence. The lower courts had concurrently found that the plaintiff had not discharged the burden of establishing his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In second appeal, interference is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be reappreciated merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The concurrent factual findings were not open to interference, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or give rise to a substantial question of law; mere disagreement with appreciation of evidence is insufficient.

---