https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313493 Section 100 CPC limits second appeals to substantial questions of law, and the High Court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact without a properly framed question. The High Court erred by introducing a tenancy theory that was neither pleaded nor the basis of the courts below' findings, and its interference with ownership, adverse possession, and possession findings was outside its jurisdiction. Tenancy was not proved because the respondent produced no lease deed, rent receipts, or evidence from any landlord, and a recital in the sale deed did not establish tenancy. The trial court and first appellate court's findings in favour of the appellant were therefore restored. en-us Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Apr 2024 17:32:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313493 Section 100 CPC limits second appeals to substantial questions of law, and the High Court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact without a properly framed question. The High Court erred by introducing a tenancy theory that was neither pleaded nor the basis of the courts below' findings, and its interference with ownership, adverse possession, and possession findings was outside its jurisdiction. Tenancy was not proved because the respondent produced no lease deed, rent receipts, or evidence from any landlord, and a recital in the sale deed did not establish tenancy. The trial court and first appellate court's findings in favour of the appellant were therefore restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313493