A.P.MISRA, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3) THE only question which arises for our consideration is, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the courts below without framing any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code

(4) THE respondent filed a title suit for possession of an agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit was barred by time and the defendant-petitioner had perfected title by adverse possession. This was confirmed by the appellate court. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the courts below and decreed the suit of the respondent. By looking to the impugned order of the High Court, we find there is no substantial question of law framed as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and without considering the same, the High Court has set aside the judgment of two courts below, which in our opinion, without entering into the merits of the decision in second appeal, is unsustainable under law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the Hig