A substantial question of law must be of general public importance or directly and substantially affect the rights of the parties in order to be considered substantial.

Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.

Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the records.

2. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2007, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.21, Raebaeli in Regular Suit No.159 of 1992 (Ram Shanker & Others v. Ganga Ram & Others), by which the suit of the appellant/plaintiffs has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 30.101.2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court o.5, Raebareli in Civil Appeal No.56 of 2007 (Ram Shanker & Others v. Ganga Ram & Others), by which the appeal of the appellant/plaintiffs has been dismissed.

3. A detailed hearing and perusal of the judgment and orders of both the Courts below made it abundantly clear that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Even appreciation of evidence by the two Courts below has not been assailed before this Court. Learned counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Zafaruddin @ Zafar Qureshi v. Sushil Singh [ 2013 (1) JCLR 575 (All)]. But, this case is not applicable in the instant matter.

4. In Sir Chunnilal V. Mehta & & Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in A.I.R. 1962 S.C., 1314, the Hon'ble Apex Court for the purposes of determining the issue has held :

"The proper test for determining whether a question of law raises 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."

Further in Rajeshwari Vs. Puran Indoria, reported in (2005) 7 S.C.C., 60, it was held : .

"The Court, for the reasons to be recorded, may also entertain a second appeal even on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if the Court is satisfied that the case involves such a question. Therefore, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine-quanon for the exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. The second appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous findings of facts based on appreciation of the relevant evidence."

5. In Smt. Bibhabati Devi Vs. Ramendra Narayan Roy & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1947 PC 19, it has been held :

"the Privy Council has provided the guidelines as in what cases the second appeal can be entertained, explaining the provisions existing prior to the amendment of 1976, observing .... that miscarriage of justice means such a departure from the rules which permeate all judicial procedure as to make that which happen not in the proper sense of the word a judicial procedure at all. That the violation of some principles of law or procedure must be such erroneous proposition of law that if that proposition to be corrected, the finding cannot stand, or it may be the neglect of some principle of law or procedure, whose application will have the same effect. The question whether there is evidence on which the Courts could arrive at their finding, is such a question of law."

6. In Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi,(2011) 1 S.C.C. 673, reported in it has been held :

"...a point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be 'substantial' a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law 'involving in the case' there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether a question of law is a substantial one or