As per case facts, petitioners secured an agreement for sale of land, but the sellers later sold it to respondents. Petitioners initiated a suit for specific performance, while respondents sought ... ownership declaration. Both the trial and first appellate courts favored petitioners, granting specific performance. The High Court, however, reversed, citing material alteration in the sale agreement due to added marginal witnesses. The question arose whether the High Court correctly overturned concurrent lower court findings based on this alleged material alteration, and if its intervention aligned with the scope of a second appeal. Finally, the Supreme Court found the High Court's decision untenable. It observed that the agreement's validity did not depend on marginal witnesses, nor did the alleged alterations fundamentally alter its enforceability. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court wrongly set aside consistent factual findings and misused its appellate powers under Section 100 CPC, particularly without addressing the lower courts' discretionary use of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Thus, the Supreme Court reinstated the lower courts' judgments, upholding specific performance for the petitioners.