https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275523 In second appeal, Section 100 CPC confines interference to substantial questions of law arising from the pleadings and the record, so concurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed unless they are perverse or contrary to law. The High Court's framed questions were treated as factual, making interference with the trial and first appellate courts unjustified. Remand for a de novo trial under Order XLI Rules 23, 23-A and 25 CPC requires a legal basis and recorded reasons; absent these, the appellate court must decide the appeal on merits, so the remand could not stand. On merits, adverse possession against the State was not proved, while the landlord-tenant relationship was established. en-us Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jan 2025 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275523 In second appeal, Section 100 CPC confines interference to substantial questions of law arising from the pleadings and the record, so concurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed unless they are perverse or contrary to law. The High Court's framed questions were treated as factual, making interference with the trial and first appellate courts unjustified. Remand for a de novo trial under Order XLI Rules 23, 23-A and 25 CPC requires a legal basis and recorded reasons; absent these, the appellate court must decide the appeal on merits, so the remand could not stand. On merits, adverse possession against the State was not proved, while the landlord-tenant relationship was established. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275523