https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172511 In second appeal, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises. The trial court and first appellate court had found that the plaintiff was in sole possession of the suit property and the defendant failed to prove the alleged Will or allotment. Because title was left open and possession was sufficient to support injunction relief, the High Court acted beyond the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in overturning the decree. The injunction suit was therefore restored and the finding of possession sustained. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:20:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172511 In second appeal, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises. The trial court and first appellate court had found that the plaintiff was in sole possession of the suit property and the defendant failed to prove the alleged Will or allotment. Because title was left open and possession was sufficient to support injunction relief, the High Court acted beyond the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in overturning the decree. The injunction suit was therefore restored and the finding of possession sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172511