JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court, dated January 30, 1992 in Second Appeal No. 291/1982. A suit filed by the Predecessor-in-Interest of the present appellants, claiming one-half share in the property in question, was dismissed by the Trial Court but in First Appeal the order of the Trial Court was set aside and a preliminary decree for redemption of the property, as prayed for, was passed and the plaintiff was held to be entitled for the relief claimed. Aggrieved by that order the respondent preferred the Second Appeal in the High Court which has been allowed and the said order has been impugned in the present appeal.

2. The main question which has been raised in the present appeal is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, by re-appraising the evidence in violation of provisions contained in Section 100 CPC. A perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court also shows that the Court had not framed any substantial question of law while entertaining and deciding the Second Appeal.

3. The brief facts are that one Anthony Ummini owned certa