are in pari materia. 11. Some of the judgments of this Court dealing with the scope of the old Section 100 are required to be discussed. In a judgment in Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya [AIR 1959 SC 57] — three Judges, while examining the scope of Section 100 CPC, held as under : (AIR p. 59, para 13) “13. The finding on the title was arrived at by the learned District Judge not on the basis of any document of title but on a consideration of relevant documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties. The learned Judge, therefore, in our9 opinion, clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the said finding. The provisions of Section 100 are clear and unambiguous. As early as in 1891, the Judicial Committee in Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir Singh Choudhri [1890 SCC OnLine PC 10 : (1889-90) 17 IA 122] stated thus : (SCC OnLine PC) ‘There is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding of fact, however gross or inexcusable the error may