https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184445 In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating evidence unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in disturbing findings that the disputed properties were self-acquired and not joint family properties. It also ruled that, without a framed substantial question of law, the High Court could not examine the genuineness or validity of the settlement deed and will. The High Court's decree was set aside and the first appellate court's decree restored. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jul 2016 17:04:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184445 In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating evidence unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in disturbing findings that the disputed properties were self-acquired and not joint family properties. It also ruled that, without a framed substantial question of law, the High Court could not examine the genuineness or validity of the settlement deed and will. The High Court's decree was set aside and the first appellate court's decree restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184445