Sudhir Agarwal, J.—

1. Heard Sri V.S.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal was presented through memo of appeal dated Nil without specifying any substantial question of law, which according to appellant is/are involved in this appeal, which is requirement under Section 100(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), as amended by Act 104 of 1976, Section 37, w.e.f. 1st February, 1977. Besides, the appeal was admitted on 1st March, 1978 but without formulating any substantial question of law, which is the requirement under Section 100(4) of Act, 1908.

3. Whether such a memo of appeal having not been presented in accordance with mandatory requirement of Section 100(3) of Act, 1908 and there is no amendment sought in memo of appeal, can be said to be maintainable in view of requirement of Section 100 of Act, 1908.

4. Under Section 100 of Code, a second appeal can be entertained by this Court only if it involves substantial question of law. In other words it does not confer any jurisdiction on this Court to interfere with pure questions of fact, which have been considered and adjudicated by courts below after appreciation of evidence recording well considered findings. If there is a finding of fact, based on proper appreciation of evidence, and, material on record, and no perversity, illegality or irregularity in those findings are found, the second appeal is not at all entertainable by this Court under Section 100 of the Code. Even mere illegality or irregularity in findings would not permit interference. They require something more.

5. There are two situations in which, ordinarily, interference with findings of fact is permissible, namely, (a) when material or relevant evidence is not considered, which if considered, would have led to opposite conclusion, and (b) where a finding has been arrived at by court below by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence, which if would have been omitted, an opposite conclusion would have been possible. I derive these principles from some of the authorities of Apex Court and, briefly, it would be appropriate to refer the same.

6. In Dilbagrai Punjabi Vs. Sharad Chandra, AIR 1988 SC 1858, the Court affirmed the observations of High Court that First Appellate Court is under a duty to examine entire relevant evidence on record and if it refuses to consider important evidence having direct bearing on the disputed issue, and the error which arises is of magnitude that it gives birth to a substantial question of law, the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding.

7. In Jagdish Singh Vs. Nathu Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1604, it was said, where finding by court of facts is vitiated by non consideration of relevant evidence or by an essentially erroneous approach to the matter, the High Court is not precluded from recording proper finding.

8. In Sri Chand Gupta Vs. Gulzar Singh, AIR 1992 SC 123 the Court upheld interference by High Court in second appeal where the Lower Appellate Court relied an admission of third party treating it as binding on the defendant though it was inadmissible against the said defendant.

9. In Sundra Naicka Vadiyar Vs. Ramaswami Ayyar, AIR 1994 SC 532 the Court said where certain vital documents for deciding the question of possession were ignored, such as compromise, an order of revenue Court relying on oral evidence was unjustified.

10. In Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) through Lrs., 2000(1) SCC 434 the Court in paras 11 and 13 of the judgment clearly mentioned two situations in which inference with findings of fact is permissible. It is said:

"11. There are two situations in which interference with findings of fact is permissible. The first one is when material or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered would have led to an opposite conclusion. . . . ."

"13. The second situation in which interference with findings of fact is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document