A second appeal cannot reopen factual findings where the alleged legal question requires reappreciating evidence.

Late Adiram Patia owned 7 Bighas 14 Lechas of land covered by P.P. No. 6, Dag No. 32/353/334.

In 1969, he executed a registered Gift Deed No. 1987 in favour of his minor grandson, Bimal Chandra Bora, gifting 3 Bighas 2 Kathas 17 Lechas.

Bimal’s father, Ranjit Bora, managed the property during Bimal’s minority and died on 5 May 1989.

Thereafter, certain defendants allegedly occupied 3 Kathas and constructed a Namghar, while Mahendra Bordoloi allegedly dispossessed Bimal from 2 Bighas 4 Kathas 17 Lechas and cultivated the land.

Mahendra Bordoloi and other defendants contended that Adiram Patia had exchanged the disputed land with land belonging to Purnakanta Lalung, predecessor of Mahendra, and that the revenue records had not been corrected due to departmental error.

The trial court declared Bimal’s right, title and interest over the gifted land and directed eviction of Mahendra Bordoloi.

The first appellate court affirmed the decree by judgment dated 31 March 2012.

Mahendra thereafter preferred the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which a Regular Second Appeal lies only where a substantial question of law is involved.

Relying on Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179, the Court held that a substantial question of law must be debatable, must not be settled by binding law, must materially affect the parties’ rights, and must arise from the pleadings and sustainable findings of the courts below.

The Court further reiterated that the first appellate court is ordinarily the final court on questions of fact and that pure findings of fact cannot be reappreciated in second appeal unless a genuine substantial question of law arises.

The registered Gift Deed relied upon by Bimal was proved before the trial court.

The appellant’s challenge essentially required reconsideration of the factual circumstances surrounding the gift, the alleged exchange, possession, and the competing claims to title.

The High Court held that these matters had already been considered by the courts below and did not disclose a substantial question of law.

The framed question concerning the interpretation and effect of Ext. 3 was, in substance, directed at reappreciating evidence and factual findings, which was impermissible in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Consequently, the concurrent findings recognising Bimal’s title and directing eviction were not open to interference.

The challenge to the registered Gift Deed and the concurrent factual findings of the courts below was rejected.

The Regular Second Appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the Trial Court Record was directed to be sent back.