https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314282 In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the SC held that interference is confined to a substantial question of law and does not permit mere reappreciation of evidence or disturbance of factual findings. The Court found that the first appellate court had properly examined the oral and documentary record and reached a reasoned finding on adoption, with no ignored material evidence, perversity, or other recognised exception justifying second-appeal review. The High Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing the second appeal, and the first appellate court's decree was restored. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 May 2024 21:16:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314282 In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the SC held that interference is confined to a substantial question of law and does not permit mere reappreciation of evidence or disturbance of factual findings. The Court found that the first appellate court had properly examined the oral and documentary record and reached a reasoned finding on adoption, with no ignored material evidence, perversity, or other recognised exception justifying second-appeal review. The High Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing the second appeal, and the first appellate court's decree was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314282