https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277414 Section 100 CPC limits second appellate interference with concurrent or otherwise supportable findings of fact. The High Court cannot reopen evidence, draw fresh inferences, or substitute its own view on witness credibility where the lower courts' findings are supported by material on record. On the stated findings, the earlier transfers were treated as benami and the decretal amount remained unpaid, so the plaintiff's title and right to possession survived and the suit remained maintainable in his favour. The commentary therefore underlines that reappreciation of evidence is beyond the proper scope of second appeal when findings of fact are sustainable. en-us Tue, 22 Nov 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Dec 2018 18:47:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277414 Section 100 CPC limits second appellate interference with concurrent or otherwise supportable findings of fact. The High Court cannot reopen evidence, draw fresh inferences, or substitute its own view on witness credibility where the lower courts' findings are supported by material on record. On the stated findings, the earlier transfers were treated as benami and the decretal amount remained unpaid, so the plaintiff's title and right to possession survived and the suit remained maintainable in his favour. The commentary therefore underlines that reappreciation of evidence is beyond the proper scope of second appeal when findings of fact are sustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Nov 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277414