Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the defendant's second appeal are as under:-

"1. Whether the appeal Court acted in excess of jurisdiction in upholding sales Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and the rent note Ex.P-5 without meeting the reasonings of the trial Court?

2. Whether the sale Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 are void as hit by section 165(6) of the MPLR Code 1959 without prior permission from the Collector."

2. In a claim for eviction from a house at mouza Bhedikona, Tahsil Dabhara, District Bilaspur and for arrears of rent of Rs. 2,700/- at Rs. 75/- per month, the trial Court dismissed the suit finding inter alia that it has not been proved that the defendant sold the suit house in favour of the plaintiffs under two registered sale deeds, both dated 23.6.1976 (Exs.P-1 & P-2) for Rs. 9,000- and Rs. 6,000/- respectively nor the plaintiffs were put in possession thereof, as no consideration has been paid to the defendant and there is great variance as to when and if at all the plaintiffs were put in possession as deposed by Amritlal (PW-1), Kashi Prasad (PW-5) and Lokeshwar (PW-6) and the sale was incomplete for essentials under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act were not adhered to. It was further held that it is not proved that Ex.P-5 is a rent-note or lease and the defendant had ever paid rent thereunder. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for eviction and arrears of rent. The trial Court further recorded a finding that Exs.P-1 & P-2 are not hit by Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the Code) for there is no material that the defendant, Mowar by caste, is aboriginal tribe notified under Section 165(6) of the Code. In appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the first appellate Court did not agree with the findings of the trial Court and upheld the sale Ex.P-1 & P-2 and further upholding the rent-note Ex.P-5 claim for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed against which this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred and substantial questions of law have been framed which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in setting aside the well reasoned finding of the trial Court. The sale if hit by Section 165(6) of the Code has been left undetermined. As such, Mowar is notified aboriginal tribe under Section 165(6) of the Code by prohibiting sale without permission of the Collector. He would further submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in upholding sale Exs.P-1 & P-2 and rent-note Ex.P-5 as such, the judgment & decree of the first appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

4. Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3, would support the impugned judgment & decree.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

Answer to substantial question of law No. 2:-

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has clearly held that Exs.P-1 & P-2 are not hit by Section 165 (6) of the Code, as there is no material that the defendant is Mowar by caste which is an aboriginal tribe notified under Section 165(6) of the Code. The said finding has attained finality as it was not challenged by the defendant by either filing appeal or cross-appeal before the first appellate Court and that finding of the trial Court on such issue has become final and the defendant now cannot be permitted to raise an issue which has become final and, therefore, in this second appeal, no such question arises for determination as such, it is answered accordingly, as the finding has attained finality. Even otherwise, the said finding is a finding of fact based on the material available on record having no perversity.

Answer to s