https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183902 In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by reappreciation of evidence unless a real substantial question of law arises under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court and first appellate court had concurrently held that adverse possession was not proved, and the High Court was not entitled to reverse those findings merely on reassessment of the documentary and oral evidence. The Supreme Court held that no genuine substantial question of law arose and set aside the High Court's judgment. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:15:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183902 In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by reappreciation of evidence unless a real substantial question of law arises under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court and first appellate court had concurrently held that adverse possession was not proved, and the High Court was not entitled to reverse those findings merely on reassessment of the documentary and oral evidence. The Supreme Court held that no genuine substantial question of law arose and set aside the High Court's judgment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183902