https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277386 In second appeal, the High Court cannot reappreciate admissible and relevant evidence merely because it considers the evidence insufficient to support concurrent findings of fact. Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, sufficiency of evidence is for the courts of fact, and interference is confined to the narrow statutory limits. The High Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction by upsetting the concurrent findings on title and possession on a reassessment of evidence. The appeal was allowed in favour of the appellants. en-us Fri, 29 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Dec 2018 12:01:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277386 In second appeal, the High Court cannot reappreciate admissible and relevant evidence merely because it considers the evidence insufficient to support concurrent findings of fact. Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, sufficiency of evidence is for the courts of fact, and interference is confined to the narrow statutory limits. The High Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction by upsetting the concurrent findings on title and possession on a reassessment of evidence. The appeal was allowed in favour of the appellants. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277386