https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461899 Second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 were treated as maintainable despite an objection based on amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because that objection was not pressed and the statutory second-appeal grounds remained controlling. Interference with the first appellate decree was justified where the appellate court went beyond the pleadings and issues, treated sale deed and jamabandi entries as invalid without evidentiary foundation, and relied on suspicion rather than record evidence. Findings based on no evidence and substantial procedural defect were held unsustainable, so the trial court's dismissal of the suit stood restored. en-us Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2025 17:34:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461899 Second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 were treated as maintainable despite an objection based on amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because that objection was not pressed and the statutory second-appeal grounds remained controlling. Interference with the first appellate decree was justified where the appellate court went beyond the pleadings and issues, treated sale deed and jamabandi entries as invalid without evidentiary foundation, and relied on suspicion rather than record evidence. Findings based on no evidence and substantial procedural defect were held unsustainable, so the trial court's dismissal of the suit stood restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461899