JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—Judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan dated September 30, 1993 is under challenge in this second appeal. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, may be noticed thus. 2. Udho, resident of village Shampur-Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff, filed a suit before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Paonta Sahib for declaration that he is, owner of the land comprised in Khasra No. 794/568 measuring 2 bighas 2 biswas situated in village Shampur Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, as per Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 and subsequent sale by defendant No. 1, Ram Kishan in favour of Mangta, defendant No. 2 of a portion of this land measuring 12 biswas denoted by Khasra No. 794/568/1, measuring 12 biswas, hereinafter referred to as suit land, as shown in Tatima, is illegal and Plaintiff is not bound by such sale. 3. The case of the Plaintiff appears to be that the^ land was purchased by the Plaintiff from Defendant No. 1 on May 21, 1968 for a consideration of rupees 1,850/-. Initially, the transaction of the sale was in respect of a field, the compact plot area of which was tentatively estimated as 2 bighas for a consideration of rupees 1,800/- but, on actual measurement, the area of the field was found to be 2 bighas 2 biswas and accordingly, the consideration was raised to rupees 1,850/- which was paid by the Plaintiff on May 21, 1968. The possession of the land was delivered to the Plaintiff and a report was duly made by the defendant No. 1, Shri Ram Kishan, to the Patwari of the area for recording the transaction of the sale. By inadvertence, the area sold was erroneously recorded as 2 bighas instead of 2 bighas 2 biswas, though, the jamabandi correctly records the area as 2 bighas 2 biswas in possession of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 1 undertook to execute the sale deed and/or have the sale attested from the Revenue Officer in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaintiff being illiterate person, trusted Defendant No. 1. However, the sale deed was not executed though the Plaintiff became owner of the suit land by way of oral sale on payment of consideration of rupees 1,850/-. The plaintiff being illiterate person, trusted Defendant No. 1. However, the sale deed was not executed though the Plaintiff became owner of the suit land by way of oral sale on payment of consideration of rupees 1,850/-. The Plaintiff maintains that if the sale is not proved, then the possession of the Plaintiff being open, hostile, continuous and to the knowledge of the Defendant Ram Kishan since May 21, 1968 has matured into title byway of adverse possession. Defendant Ram Kishan sold a portion of this land measuring 12 biswas, as denoted by Khasra No. 794/568/1 to Defendant No. 2 Shri Mangta, by a registered sale deed. It is pleaded that the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the sale of portion of this land to Defendant No. 2, continues to be in possession of the entire land measuring 2 bighas 2 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 794/568. In the circumstances, claims Plaintiff, defendant No. 2 does not derive any title from the registered sale deed, of 12 biswas of land, in his favour. It is in this context, the Plaintiff prays for declaration, as noticed earlier. 4. The suit is resisted by both the Defendants. The allegations are controverted. The case of the Defendant No. 1 is: "Defendant No. 1 was a non-occupancy tenant of the land comprised in Khasra No. 568 measuring 5 bighas 14 biswas as per Jamabandi for the year 1966-67. He acquired proprietary rights of this land under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act". A mutation to this effect was also attested on June 23, 1967. Out of this land, pleads defendant No. 1, land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas was mortgaged with the Plaintiff for a consideration of rupees 500/- in the month of December, 1968. Similarly, another portion of land measuring 1 bigha 14 biswas was mortgaged with one Shri Bartu son of Shri Munshi during the same period for similar consideration of rupees 500/-. The Plaintiff was put in possession of one bigha ten biswas of land out of Khasra No. 568 as mortgagee. The fact was reported by the Plaintiff and Shri Bartu, aforesaid, to the Patwari Halqa in December, 1968 Plaintiff and Bartu, in connivance with Patwari, got themselves recorded as "buyers" (mushtri) and also got the rapat to this effect entered in the Roznamcha (Daily Diary). The fact was reported by the Plaintiff and Shri Bartu, aforesaid, to the Patwari Halqa in December, 1968 Plaintiff and Bartu, in connivance with Patwari, got themselves recorded as "buyers" (mushtri) and also got the rapat to this effect entered in the Roznamcha (Daily Diary). According to Defendant No. 1, he never made any report of sale or mortgage to the Patwari. Report in the roznamcha purported to be made by him regarding the sale of the suit land to the Plaintiff, is the result of fraud and connivance and, therefore, illegal and not binding on the Defendant. The revenue entries to the contrary, in consequence, are wrong and illegal. 5. It is the case of defendant No. 1 that he never went to the Patwari on May 21, 1968. He admits having gone to Patwari once to satisfy the Plaintiff that he was competent to mortgage his land and that his title was clear. To similar effect is the stand of the Defendant No, 2 who pleads that he is in possession of the land measuring 12 biswas for the last 33-34 years and the land in his possession measuring 12 biswas was purchased by him by a registered sale deed in the year 1986 to the knowledge of the Plaintiff and without any objection from him. The revenue entries to the contrary are wrong iid result of connivance and fraud. It is the further case of the Defendant No. 2 that he is a bonafide purchaser of 12 biswas of land out of the suit land. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned Trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land by way of oral purchase as alleged? OPP. 2. If Issue No. 1 is not proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPP. 3. Whether the suit was mortgaged with possession by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff for a sum of rupees 500? OPD-1. 4. Whether the entries of Davedar Mushtri in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiff are collusive, illegal and result of fraud, if so its effect? OPD-1. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD-1. 6. Whether the Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-1. OPD-1. 4. Whether the entries of Davedar Mushtri in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiff are collusive, illegal and result of fraud, if so its effect? OPD-1. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD-1. 6. Whether the Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-1. 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD-1. 8. Whether the defendant No. 2 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land, if so to what effect? OPD-2. 9. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 as alleged? OPD-2. 10. Relief. 7. Learned Trial Judge found that oral sale of the suit land as claimed by the Plaintiff is not proved and the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land as claimed by him. The plea of the plaintiff that he has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession is also negatived. The case of the Defendant that portion of the suit land was mortgaged with the Plaintiff too is negatived. It is held that the Defendant No. 2 is bona fide purchaser so far purchase of 12 biswas of land by him from Defendant No. 1, is concerned. 8. Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree of learned trial Court dated November 20, 1990, the Plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan who also upheld the findings of the trial Court. Learned Additional District Judge found that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove either the oral purchase of the suit land or adverse possession over it. He also concluded that Defendant No. 2 is bona fide purchaser of the land measuring 12 biswas out of the suit land and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 9. Aggrieved plaintiff filed the present second appeal. 10. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether land in question could be sold by way of oral sale in the year 1968 or written instrument was necessary to effect the sale? 2. Whether lower appellate court has misconstrued misinterpreted Rapat Roznamcha dated 21.5.1968 Ext. DW4/B dated 12.12.1968 and also mutation Ext. PF and has thus erred in dismissing the appeal? 11. Whether land in question could be sold by way of oral sale in the year 1968 or written instrument was necessary to effect the sale? 2. Whether lower appellate court has misconstrued misinterpreted Rapat Roznamcha dated 21.5.1968 Ext. DW4/B dated 12.12.1968 and also mutation Ext. PF and has thus erred in dismissing the appeal? 11. So far oral sale is concerned, there is no scope of dispute that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act was made applicable to Himachal Pradesh, including District of Sirmour, by a Notification No. 17-13/66 Rev. I dated December 7, 1970. In the circumstances, oral sale of immovable properties in the District of Sirmour was permissible in the year 1968. The question No. (i) is accordingly answered. 12. (ii). Now the question which arise for consideration is whether the plaintiff purchased the suit land by oral sale from Defendant No. 1 as claimed by him. Both the learned Courts found, as a matter of fact, that no such oral sale of the suit land took place as claimed by the Plaintiff. 13. The contention of Mr. Kuldip Singh, Senior Advocate and learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the Courts below have misinterpreted the report in the daily diary of the Patwari dated May 21, 1968 (Ext. PA) and similar entry Ext. DW4/B in the daily diary of the Patwari dated December 12, 1968 to negative the plea of the plaintiff regarding oral sale. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondents contends that question of believing or dis-believing a document is not a question of law much less substantial question of law and, therefore, this Court will not be justified in re-appraising these two documents. After 1976 amendment of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is necessary for the High Court to formulate substantial question(s) of law and it is not permissible to reverse the findings of the First Appellate Court without doing so. As noticed by the Apex Court in Ishwar Dass Jain (dead) through LRs. After 1976 amendment of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is necessary for the High Court to formulate substantial question(s) of law and it is not permissible to reverse the findings of the First Appellate Court without doing so. As noticed by the Apex Court in Ishwar Dass Jain (dead) through LRs. v. Sohan Lai (dead) by LRs., 2000 (1) SCC 434, there are two situations in which interference with findings of fact is permissible:— (a.) When material or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered would have led to an opposite conclusion; (b) Where a finding has been arrived at by the appellate court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. 14. It was observed by Their Lordships that in either of the above situation, a substantial question of law will arise. 15. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents refers to Kshitish Chandra Purkaitv. Santosh Kumar Purkait and others, (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 438, to emphasise that the High Court must satisfy itself that the appeal involves a substantial question of law and not mere question of law. 16. Shri Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Advocate also refers me to Satya Gupta (Smt) alias Madho Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar, (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 423 and submits that High Court cannot interfere or substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence, in second appeal on the ground that another view was possible if the findings of fact of lower appellate court are based on evidence. Contra, Kr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant refers to D.S. Thimmappav. Siddaramakka, (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 365, and submits that if the First Appellate Court fails to draw proper inference from the proved facts and to apply law in proper perspective, the High Court would be within its jurisdiction in interferring with the findings of fact in second appeal. 17. In this case, the entire case of the Plaintiff rests on the reports made in the daily diary of the Patwari regarding the factum of the sale of the suit land. Both these entries have been dis-believed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned First Appellate Court. Ext. 17. In this case, the entire case of the Plaintiff rests on the reports made in the daily diary of the Patwari regarding the factum of the sale of the suit land. Both these entries have been dis-believed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned First Appellate Court. Ext. PA is a copy of entry recorded on May 21, 1968 evidencing that Ram Kishan, seller, accompanied by Udho Ram visited Patwar Khana and stated that he has sold two bighas of land out of khasra number 568 for rupees 1,850/ and has received the entire consideration and the possession has been delivered and that mutation to this effect may be entered. Apparent as it is, no action was taken on this entry. No mutation was entered on the basis of this entry. Mutation Ext. PF, on which the plaintiff rely was entered on February 14, 1969 on the basis of entry No. 135 in the daily diary of December 12, 1969 as is apparent from the copy of mutation Ext. PF. Ext. DW4/ B is the copy of daily diary dated December 12, 1968. It contains two reports. Both these reports are supposed to have been made by Ram Kishan, defendant No. 1. In the first report No. 134, Ram Kishan is supposed to have sold 1 bigha 14 biswas of land out of Khasra No. 568 to one Munshi for a consideration of rupees 2,000/-. The next report No. 135 evidences that Ram Kishan defendant No. 1 visited Patwar Khanna alongwith the plaintiff and stated that he has sold 2 bighas of land to the plaintiff out of Khasra No. 568 for a consideration of rupees 1,850/- and that the entire consideration amount has been received. It is significant to note that there is no reference to the earlier report regarding the same transaction dated May 21, 1968 (Ext. PA). If transaction as reported in report Ext. PA had taken place, there was no occasion for the Defendant No. 1 to have made second report to the Patwari on December 2.12.1968. As noticed by both the learned courts below, the plaintiff in the witness box categorically stated that Ram Kishan defendant made report to the Patwari only once, i.e., on May 21, 1968 (Ext. PA) and, therefore, the second report Ext. DW4/B admittedly has been recorded without any basis. As noticed by both the learned courts below, the plaintiff in the witness box categorically stated that Ram Kishan defendant made report to the Patwari only once, i.e., on May 21, 1968 (Ext. PA) and, therefore, the second report Ext. DW4/B admittedly has been recorded without any basis. In fact, the plaintiff admits in his cross-examination that he never visited the Patwari after May 21, 1968. This evidence has been appreciated by the trial court and the first appellate court and no fault can be found with the appreciation of the evidence by both the learned courts. It is not given to the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100, Cr.P.C, to re-appraise the evidence. The High Court can interfere with the findings only if it is shown that the findings arrived at by the two courts were perverse or based on no evidence or that no reasonable person would have come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record as the courts below. Such is not the case in this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show how the findings are perverse and based on no evidence or the findings arrived at by the trial Court and the First Appellate court could not have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record by any reasonable person. I am fortified in my view by the ratio in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another, (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 573. 18. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has not been able to show how the Report dated May 21, 1968 Ex. PA and Report Ext. DW4/B has been misinterpreted or misconstrued by the learned trial court and the first appellate court. No interference, in the circumstances of this case, is required with the conclusions arrived at by the courts below. 19. No other point is urged before me. 20. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.