So sir I have chose this topic becoz while filing the case the firdt thing come in our

mind that if the judgemrnt or a decree doesn’t come in our favour then there is a
provision of appeal and if appealent or defendant is not satisfied then there is a
provision of filing second appeal.

Research question:

1. What is Section 103 of CPC, 1908?

2. What is the Perversity of finding of fact as a substantial question of law?

3. What is second appeal in CPC, 1908

Substantial question of law:

In the context of Section 100 of the CPC, any question of law, which affects
the final decision in a case is a 'substantial question of law' as between the
parties.

It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law,

which is not finally settled, arises for consideration in the case

WHEN PERVERSITY OF FINDINGS IS ESTABLISHED

After recognising that perversity of findings of fact is a substantial legal question, the question of
what constitutes perverted findings of fact arises. Perversity in fact findings can occur when
material evidence is overlooked by the lower court1, when the findings defy logic and suffer from
the vice of irrationality2, when inadmissible evidence is considered, or when the findings are
based on the incorrect test.

1
S.R. Tewari v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602
2
Sri Chand Gupta vsGulzar Singh, 1992 AIR 123
Section 103 states: “Power of High Court to determine issues of
fact— In any second appeal, the High Court may, if the evidence
on the record is sufficient, determine any issue necessary for the
disposal of the appeal,—

(a) which has not been determined by the lower Appellate Court
or both by the Court of the first instance and the lower Appellate
Court, or

(b) which has been wrongly determined by such Court or Courts

reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in
section 100.

CASE LAWS:

In Shri Bhagwan Sharma v Bani Ghosh, the plaintiff filed a suit in trail court
seeking a declaration of title in his favour based on his long possession. He
claimed to have obtained tenancy under the provisions of the Thika Tenancy Act.

Following the completion of the findings, the trial court dismissed the case. The
evidence was re-appreciated by the appellate court, and the evidence was decreed
in favour of the plaintiff. The high court ruled on the second appeal that the
appellate court had overlooked certain critical facts while considering the case.

The appellate court did not consider other evidence on behalf of the defendant and
proceeded to say that the case can only be proven based on the strength of your
evidence, not the weakness of the defence. On these terms, the second appeal was
allowed, and the court and suit were ruled in favour of the defendant. The
Honorable Supreme Court ruled that findings of fact are legally void because vital
evidence was not considered.
Conclusion:

The right to appeal will be available as soon as the verdict is issued by the
appropriate court of law. Such a right shall not be limited to the party against
whom an adverse judgement is rendered, but shall be extended fairly to all parties.
As a result, the plaintiffs have the right to file an appeal as soon as the hearings
begin and to appear after the verdict is rendered. To summarise, the statute may
only apply to cases involving a serious question of law, and it is the appellate
court's responsibility to raise such a question after responding to the appellant's
memorandum of appeal.

Case laws:

In LeelaSoni v Rajesh Goyal3, the landlord filed a suit in trail court seeking
eviction of the tenant on two grounds: first, he did not pay the rent, and second, he
encroached on land that was not allotted to him. The trial court ruled in favour of
the landlord and ordered the tenant to pay the rent and vacate the property. The
landlord filed a new appeal in the first appellate court because the tenant did not
pay the expenses during the pendency of the suit and did not vacate the property.
The first appellate court, in turn, held that the landlord failed to prove that rent was
not paid and that the encroached portion was permanent and caused him harm, and
thus dismissed the appeal on the merits. The high court reversed the findings of the
first appellate court and decreed suit in favour of the landlord after hearing the
second appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that the first appellate court had
misinterpreted the law and placed the burden on the landlord to prove rent was not
paid. Furthermore, citing Section 103 of the Code, the court held that the High
Court was well within its powers to dismiss the first appellate court's judgement
because it did not resolve relevant issues.
In the case of Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Seema Sharma &Ors4,
in a second appeal, if the findings are based on incorrect tests and assumptions and conjectures,
and there is an element of perversity involved, the High Court, in our opinion, will be within its
jurisdiction to deal with the issue. Perversity is a significant issue that requires resolution

3
LeelaSoni v Rajesh Goyal, AIR2001SC3601
4
Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. &Ors. v. Seema Sharma &Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 311
Sc ordered HC as it involves a subatantial question of law.