ORDER : Ruma Pal and B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. - Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the decision of the High Court deciding a suit on merits in a second appeal. The suit had been filed by the appellant against the respondents for possession of land. It was claimed that the land was Public Wakf property and was Ghair Mumkin Kabristan (Graveyard) meant for the dead bodies of the Muslim Community. Issues were framed in the suit of which the first two need be noted for the purposes of this decision: "1. Whether its Aukaf(sic) Officer is competent to file the present Suit? Opd. 2. Whether the suit land is a public Wakf Board property? Opd." 3. The trial court held that the property was not a Public Wakf and that the Wakf officer was incompetent to file any suit. The question of competence was also based on a rejection of the document by which the Wakf Officer was alleged to have been authorised to initiate the suit. 4. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Second Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Secretary of the Wakf Board was not duly authorised by resolution of the Board to file and present the appeal. 5. From the order of dismissal the appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Secretary of the Board was authorised to institute proceedings and that the lower Appellate Court was in error in dismissing the appellant's appeal on that ground. Having come to that conclusion, the High Court should have remanded the matter back for being determined on merits by the First Appellate Court. Instead of doing that, the High Court considered and recorded findings of fact and dismissed the second appeal as if it were discharging the functions of the First Appellate Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court being circumscribed by Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court could not have decided disputed questions of fact more so when there was no decision of the First Appellate Court on such factual dispute. The High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as far as the findings of fact were concerned nor was there indeed any question of doing so given the circumstances of the case. The High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as far as the findings of fact were concerned nor was there indeed any question of doing so given the circumstances of the case. The decision of the High Court in so far as it decided the questions of fact is set aside. The finding as regards competence of the Secretary of the Board to institute the proceedings has not been assailed by the respondents and is therefore upheld. The matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Authority viz. the second Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur to determine the issues raised in the appeal on merits. The Appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.