Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No. 94/2013 dated 03.09.2016 confirming the judgment and order rendered in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 2005 by the learned Civil Judge, Manavadar dated 30.09.2013 raising substantial questions of law as posed below:-

“1. Whether Appellate court has committed an error of law by misreading the provisions of Section 14 of Hindu succession Act, 1956 looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case?

2. Whether Appellate court has committed an error of law by misreading the provisions of Section 8 of Hindu succession Act looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case?

3. Whether Appellate court and trial courts have committed an error of law by holding that the defendant is not entitled to his share in the legacy of deceased Laljibhai Ambavibhai Bhut and the plaintiff is only entitled to the get whole legacy of the deceased Laljibhai Ambavibhai Bhut who was a male hindu died intestate leaving behind 7 legal heirs of first line?

4. Whether trial court has committed an error of law as well as facts of the case by considering the value of suit property @ Rs. 1,000/- whereas the actual value of the property is more than Rs. 50,00,000/-, ousting whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of trial court”

2. Heard learned advocate, Shri R.V. Sakaria for the appellant.

3. As it transpires from the background of the fact that the respondent-original plaintiff is the widow of Laljibhai Bhut, who was having various parcels of land, which are said to have been distributed amongst the present appellant (son) and other sons as well as the respondent, who are the heirs of Class-I. It is evident from the discussion that after the said land was given according to the share of the appellant, he is said to have sold to the deceased-father and he purchased the same. Therefore, when the father had given his share and again he sold it to the father, he cannot claim it back relying upon the provision of Hindu Succession Act.

4. The submissions which have been made by learned advocate, Shri Sakaria that as the heir of Class-I, he would be entitled to share in the property/land by the father, is required to be considered in background of the facts as the law would be applicable depending upon the facts of the case. The land, which was given to the appellant as per the understanding amongst four sons and wife during his life time, the appellant had got his share and some lands were kept by him for the wife. However as stated about the conduct and attitude of the appellant, he was not settled in life and he is said to have again sold the land to the father. Therefore, the father purchased the land, which was given by him to his son. Therefore now the appellant as a son cannot claim relying upon the provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act that he is entitled to claim share in the property/land purchased by the father. It is required to be stated that father had purchased from him the same land, which he had allotted and given to the son. However as he could not maintain with his attitude, which is reflected in the judgment of the trial court as well as lower appellate court, the father purchased and gave it to the wife for the maintenance.

5. The provision of Sections 8 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act would be applicable for the purpose of succession. However in the facts of the case, as per the family arrangement when the land has been distributed to the sons (heirs) and wife during his life time and if one of the sons has given it back by so called purchased by the father, it would not attract the Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act inasmuch as the person like the appellant having already taken share in the property of the father, cannot again make a claim qua the same property, which is said to have purchased by the fathe