https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189501 A second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be entertained where concurrent findings are vitiated by misreading of documentary evidence, ignoring material evidence, or placing the burden of proof on the wrong party, as such errors raise a substantial question of law. The beneficiary of a challenged settlement deed must prove due execution and genuineness, especially where the executant is old, illiterate, infirm, or in a confidential relationship. In that setting, Section 111 of the Evidence Act and Section 16(3) of the Contract Act require proof that the transaction was fair, bona fide, and understood by the executant. On the facts stated, the burden was not discharged. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:08:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189501 A second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be entertained where concurrent findings are vitiated by misreading of documentary evidence, ignoring material evidence, or placing the burden of proof on the wrong party, as such errors raise a substantial question of law. The beneficiary of a challenged settlement deed must prove due execution and genuineness, especially where the executant is old, illiterate, infirm, or in a confidential relationship. In that setting, Section 111 of the Evidence Act and Section 16(3) of the Contract Act require proof that the transaction was fair, bona fide, and understood by the executant. On the facts stated, the burden was not discharged. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189501