(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) BY the impugned judgment learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kamataka has interfered with the concurrent findings rendered by the trial court and the first appellate court and allowed the second appeal. We have noticed that the jurisdiction of the second appeal had been invoked without formulating any question of law, much less any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court has stated time and again that formulation of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for invoking such jurisdiction. (As for example, Kanai Lal Garari v. Murari Ganguly there is a legion of decisions of this Court.) We, tnerefore, upset the impugned judgment and remand the second appeal back to the High Court for disposal of it according to law. If the High Court finds any substantial question of law the decision of ours will not prevent the High Court from formulating the same afresh and dispose of the second appeal in accordance with law.

(3) THE appeals are disposed of accordingly.