Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The trial court appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and held that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit property, as the defendants failed to prove the execution of the sale deed by late Bhagirathi and the subsequent sale deeds in favor of the defendants (!) (!) .

2. The first appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings on all issues but permitted an amendment in the written statement following a remand ordered by a higher court. This remand was characterized as a partial (limited) remand, not a wholesale remand (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. During the remand, the trial court framed an additional issue based on the amendment, and the defendants led evidence on this issue. The trial court then decided this issue in favor of the plaintiffs, further confirming the defendants' failure to prove the sale deed execution (!) (!) .

4. Both the trial and appellate courts concurred that the remand was partial/limited, and the trial court was bound by the directions of the appellate court. The remand did not require re-evaluation of all issues but was limited to the additional issue framed after the amendment (!) (!) .

5. The legal framework for remand under the relevant procedural rules was discussed, emphasizing that wholesale remand requires specific conditions, and in this case, the remand was appropriately classified as partial, thus limiting the scope of re-examination (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. The second appellate court found that the courts below correctly held that the remand was partial and not a wholesale remand, and that the findings on the issues related to the execution of sale deeds were concurrent, based on evidence on record, and not perverse (!) (!) (!) (!) .

7. The court also addressed the framing of substantial questions of law, noting that the appellant did not initially frame or raise the necessary substantial questions at the time of appeal, but the court has the discretion to frame additional questions if justified (!) (!) (!) .

8. It was reaffirmed that the second appeal can only be entertained if a substantial question of law is involved and properly formulated at the initial stage. Since no such questions were initially raised by the appellant, and the findings are based on facts that are not perverse, the appeal was dismissed (!) (!) (!) (!) .

9. The final conclusion was that the second appeal lacks merit, the findings of fact are conclusive, and the original decrees are reaffirmed. The appeal was dismissed, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs (!) (!) .

In summary, the key legal points revolve around the nature of the remand (partial vs. wholesale), the binding nature of concurrent factual findings, and the procedural requirements for framing substantial questions of law in second appeals.