The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantial questions of law under Section 100 of CPC and the impact of such questions on the final decision between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This Second Appeal No.15 of 2021, has been reported to be defective, due to non furnishing of the certified copy of the impugned judgments, would stand over ruled, for the reason being that in the connected Second Appeal No.16 of 2021, the certified copy of the judgment has been supplied with and which is common to both the appeals. Hence, the defects stand over ruled.

2. This is plaintiffs/appellants' second appeal, which is arising out of the judgment and decree, which was rendered by the learned court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Almora in Civil Suit No.82 of 2013, Jagdish Lal (subsequently succeeded by the present appellants) vs. Mahindra Singh Chauhan and another on 22.09.2015, wherein the plaintiffs/appellants, have given a challenge to the sale deed dated 01.04.2004. The suit in question was adjudicated by the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Almora; by partially decreeing the suit and declaring the sale deed to be void in relation to the 9 muthis of land only and for rest of the land, which was also the subject matter of the suit and the sale deed, the suit was dismissed. As against the partial dismissal of suit, an appeal which was preferred by the plaintiff/appellants, against the partial dismissal of their suit on 22.09.2015 against the sale deed of 01.04.2004, defendants/respondents filed a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C., which has been decided by the judgment of 07.11.2020 in Civil Appeal No.42 of 2015. By way of Civil Appeal No.42 of 2015, which has been allowed and as a consequence thereto, the suit of the plaintiff/appellants have been dismissed qua the decree, which was rendered by the trial court in the Original Suit on 22.09.2015.

3. The counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants in the two Second Appeals have submitted, that under the strength of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the ratio as propounded in para 13 of the judgment reported in State Bank of India and others vs. S.N. Goyal,2008 8 SCC particularly the reference has been made to para 13 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereunder:-

"13. Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. The word 'substantial' prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of Section 100 CPC,

any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing in the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question of law, by this Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled by this Court (or by the concerned High Court so far as the State is concerned), arises for consideration in the case. But this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective. Where there is a clear enunciation of law and the lower court has followed or rightly applied such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance. On the other hand, if there is a clear enunciation of law by this Court (or by the concerned High Court), but the lower court had ignored or misinterpreted or misapplied the same, and correct application of the law as declared or enunciated by this Court (or the concerned High Court) would have led to