IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a substantial question of law for the court to entertain an appeal under Section 100 of CPC, as well as the scope and limitations of the court's jurisdiction in second appeals.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant second appeal is preferred aggrieved from order dated 21.10.2023 in Civil Regular Appeal No. 26/2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa whereby judgment and decree dated 17.10.2019 in Civil Suit No. 72/2018 (47/2015) was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal have submitted that appellants have challenged the relinquishment deed executed by respondent no.4 in favour of Shaitan Singh (husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent nos. 2 and 3), without any authority. He further submitted that this property is ancestral property received in succession after death of Late Chaggan Singh, wherein appellants have right of succession. He also submitted that plaintiffs nos. 2 to 5 are sons and daughter of respondent no.4 having right and claim in co-parcenary property succeeded by respondent no.4, therefore, respondent no.4 has no right to execute relinquishment deed. He also submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the legal issues and also the material available on record. He also referred the findings of learned appellate court and submitted that the appellate court without going into depth has dismissed the appeal. He also submitted that on the basis of facts, circumstances and grounds there exists substantial questions of law, which require consideration by this Hon’ble Court. He also submitted that the finding of learned courts below are perverse and illegal, therefore, same is required to be set aside.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of caveator respondent nos. 1 to 3 and submitted that there is a concurrent finding of the Courts below and in second appeal this Hon’ble Court cannot look into the factual aspect, therefore, in absence of substantial question of law, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. A perusal of material indicated that plaintiff no.1, who is wife of defendant no. 4 and plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 (sons and daughters of plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 4), have filed a suit for cancellation of relinquishment deed dated 30.10.2012 executed by defendant no.4 in favour of Late Shaitan Singh.

6. Aforesaid clearly indicated that the suit was filed on 24.07.2015 challenging the deed executed on dated 30.10.2012. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, six issues were framed and both the parties produced their evidence and after full trial the suit of appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed.

7. Aggrieved from aforesaid, appeal under Section 96 was filed and same was dismissed on 21.10.2023. The findings recorded by the Court below indicated that both are concurrent findings.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellant particularly in the light of Section 100 of CPC, I am of the considered view that the appeal cannot be entertained unless there is substantial question of law requiring consideration by this Court. This Court cannot interfere with the pure question of facts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC. Normally, in concurrent finding and dismissal of appeal by the First Appellate Court, this Court cannot interfere in the concurrent finding of facts unless there is substantial question of law.

9. Just to determine whether a question is substantial question of law or not, was laid down by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons. Ltd. Vs. Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314, as under:

"The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federa