JUDGMENT : Leave granted. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. The appellants had filed a suit in 1988, inter alia, for a declaration that they are owners of certain lands which belonged to one Jagat Ram alias Jatt. The appellants claimed to be the children of the daughter of the deceased. The respondents who were the defendants in the suit claimed that Jagat Ram had died after having executed a will in their favour. On the [pleadings, the Court framed issues one of which was specifically whether the will dated 11.7.1983 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Jatt in favour of the defendants and if so its effect. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence given by the defendants was contradictory and that the will appeared to have been executed in suspicious circumstances. The issue noted above was, accordingly, decided against the respondents by holding that the will had not been duly executed by the deceased Jatt. 4. The first appeal from the decision was dismissed after a re-appreciation of the entire evidence. The first appellant court also came to the conclusion that there were several suspicious circumstances which included taking active part in the execution of the will by the propounder who was also the substantial beneficiary thereof, the contradictory evidence given by the respondent witnesses and the exclusion of the natural heirs of the deceased. The first appellate court held that all these suspicious circumstances had not been explained by the respondents. The first appeal was, accordingly, rejected. 5. On second appeal, the High Court framed the following issue claiming that was a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code: "Whether the will executed by Jatt @ Jagat Ram in favour of the defendants which was duly registered before Sub Registrar, Nurpur, has been proved by the defendants being valid not shrouded by suspicious circumstances and whether the reasoning recorded by both the courts holding the said will null and invalid were grossly perverse and against the well settled position of law." 6. The issue as framed does not at all raise any question of law, let alone a substantial one. The issue as framed does not at all raise any question of law, let alone a substantial one. The Court in second appeal misdirected itself when it sought to re-appreciate the entire evidence adduced, which had been noticed, appreciated and discussed by the courts below in their concurrent findings, in such re-appreciation of evidence, the High Court in second appeal reversed these concurrent findings. The decision of the High Court was clearly without jurisdiction and otherwise incorrect. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court without any order as to costs.