The need for a substantial question of law for a Second Appeal and the limited scope of review under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

ORDER :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.02.2010 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Shehera in Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 2006 as well as judgment, order and decree dated 10.02.2022 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Panchmahals in Regular Civil Appeal No.13 of 2010, the present Second Appeal is filed by the original-plaintiffs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the subject parcel of land, which is allotted to one Kevalram Devaldas as an evacuee property and the same was allotted to said Kevalram Devaldas on 07.05.1974 as new tenure land. The subject parcel of land situated at village : Dhamnod of Panchmahal District bearing Revenue Survey No. 1, ad measuring 6 Accres and 9 Gunthas and subsequently, the subject parcel of land sold to the present respondent – original defendant way back in the year 1977. The said transactions was under challenge in the present Civil Suit filed by the legal heirs of the Kevalram Devaldas by way of filing the Civil Suit No.18 of 2006 in the Court of Learned Principal Civil Judge at Shehera. Learned Civil Judge has considered the written statement of other-side and application under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

3. The learned Trial Court has framed the following issues vide Exh. 13 (issue):

“Issues :-

(1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that, the land in dispute is ancestral land and of Co-ownership ?

(2) Whether the Plaintiff proves that, as the impugned Sale Deed of Dt. 28/12/1977 is against the right and interest of the Plaintiff, hence it is liable to be canceled ?

(3) Whether the Plaintiff proves that, the Defendant does not have the right to enter into the plaintiff's possession of the disputed property ?

(4) Whether the Defendant proves that, the suit is barred by the mis- joinder of the parties ?

(5) Whether the Defendant proves that, the suit is barred by the Limitation Act ?

(6) Whether the Defendant proves that, the Plaintiff does not have any right and authority to file the present suit ?

(7) Whether the Plaintiff is eligible to get the relief which are prayed in the suit ?

(8) What Order and Decree ?”

3.1. The issues framed by the Trial Court referred to above came to be answered as under :-

“4 - My answers to the aforementioned issues are as follows :-

(1) In Negative, -

(2) In Negative, -

(3) In Negative, -

(4) In Affirmative, +

(5) In Affirmative, +

(6) In Affirmative, +

(7) In Negative, -

(8) As per Final Order.”

4. After considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the present appellants vide its judgment and decree dated 01.02.2010.

4.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellants preferred the appeal under Section 96 before the learned Principal District Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra being Regular Civil Appeal No.13 of 2010. The Appellate Court, has considered the records of the Trial Court and after going through the records and the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, has framed the point of determination in para 4 :

“(4) The below mentioned issues have been raised before me for the disposal of the said Appeal.

1 - Whether the Appellant proves that, the Registered Sale Deed no. 2483 of the land in dispute is false, canceled, against the right and interest of the Plaintiff, hence it is liable to be canceled ?

2 - Whether the suit of Plaintiff is out of the time limit ?

3 - Whether the Appellant proves that, The Order and Decree pronounced by The Principal Civil Judge of Sehra in the case of Reg. Civil Suit 18 /2006 on 01/02/2010 vide exhibit -120 is erroneous, against the established principles of law and against the produced evidences ?

4 - Whether it is proper to interfere in the Judgment pronounced by the Principal Civil Judge of Sehra ?

5 - What Order ?”

4.2. The issues framed by the Appellate Court referred to above came to be answered as under :-

“(