Pratap Kumar Ray ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. ( 2 ) THE Second Appeal arose out of challenge of the judgment and decree dated 9th July, 1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Second court, Krisnnanagore, Nadia in Title Suit No. 13 of 1996 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21 st day of December, 1995 passed by the learned Munsif, third Court, Krishnanagore, District-Nadia in Title Suit No. 1 of 1993. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 12th April, 1999 by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by Samaresh Banerjea and M. H. S. Ansari, JJ. (as their Lordships then were) on added grounds being ground No. X, which reads to this effect :-"for that it being the decided principles of law as laid down in 66 CWN page 255 that Special close of protection enjoyed by parda nasin women is available to illiterate male person the Court of Appeal below sought to have followed the said decision and the decision recorded in AIR 1963 SC 1203 and ought not to have reversed the finding of the Trial Court simply on the ground that the plaintiff had acquainted with registration office to register the immovable property and he has known of worldly affairs". ( 3 ) BEFORE adverting the issue as to whether any question of law involved therein a factual foundation of the case in short is to be dealt with. The appellant before this Court as a plaintiff filed the said title suit praying for declaration of title over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the suit property, declaration that the concerned Deed of Sale as mentioned in the prayer were null and void on the ground of exercising fraud and permanent injunction about fate of such Deed and other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff/appellant herein in the suit in a nut shell contended, inter alia, that on 10th August, 1984, the plaintiff was brought to the Palasi Para for medical treatment by the wife/defendant and the brother, who is also the another defendant namely, the defendant Nos. 1 and 4 respectively and leftthumb impression of the plaintiff was taken on some written papers on misrepresentation that those papers would be required for medical treatment. 1 and 4 respectively and leftthumb impression of the plaintiff was taken on some written papers on misrepresentation that those papers would be required for medical treatment. Subsequently when a quarrel ensued in the year 1991 it was disclosed by the defendant No. 1, the wife that the schedule property was already disposed by Sale Deed by the plaintiff which was on query from the plaintiff was handed over for perusal. With the help of other persons the meaning of those two deeds were understood. As the plaintiff never executed such Deed, the suit was filed. ( 4 ) THE defence case is that the defendants filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the Deed is of the year 1984 was executed by the plaintiff with full knowledge by appearing in the registry office and after understanding the purpose of the Deed it was executed and registered on the same date on 10th August, 1984. It was further the case of the defendants that on account of payment of Danmohur the suit property was sold by executing sale deed in favour of wife defendant. Defendant by Hebanama that is by Gift Deed in favour of the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 transferred the same. From them in the year 1991, the plaintiff purchased the suit property again. The plaintiff accordingly had the knowledge of the Deed as executed in the year 1984 and there was no quarrel with the plaintiff with the wife, defendant No. 1 and the brother, defendant No. 4 at the material time. ( 5 ) ON considering the evidence on record the learned Trial Court decreed the suit. However, the same has been reversed by the First Appellate Court and the appellant/plaintiff has come in the Second Appeal. The substantial question of law was framed by the Division Bench aforesaid. On shifting of the onus to prove that fact that there was no exercise of fraud and misrepresentation lies to the defendants when execution of a Sale Deed is by an illiterate person otherwise the entire onus shifting to the defendants to satisfy the Court that the Sale Deed was properly executed and registered within the knowledge of the plaintiff. On shifting of the onus to prove that fact that there was no exercise of fraud and misrepresentation lies to the defendants when execution of a Sale Deed is by an illiterate person otherwise the entire onus shifting to the defendants to satisfy the Court that the Sale Deed was properly executed and registered within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that no issue was framed by the learned Trial Court on that score namely, whether the plaintiff being an illiterate person having no knowledge even of Bengli language ought to have been granted the privilege of explaining the Deed by another one that is the Deed writer and/or other witness and as to whether by exercising fraud the schedule property was transferred by the concerned deed. ( 6 ) THE parties led the evidence. From the evidence, it appears that the plaintiff never deposed before the Trial Court that he was an illiterate person having no knowledge of Bengali language and the deed was not explained to him before execution. Even in the pleading of the plaint, the plaintiff did not disclose that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1991, by setting up any plea to that effect as disclosed in the oral evidence that some properties were re-transferred again when fraud was detected. There is no case set up by the plaintiff in the pleading and there is no whisper even that in the year 1991, the scheduled property was purchased by the plaintiff himself from the concerned defendants who got the property out of hebanama executed by the wife, defendant No. 1. The defendants' witness no. 4, who was the witness to the deed, in the cross-examination has contended categorically that the deed was explained to the plaintiff and as per request of the plaintiff, he remained present in the registry office to be a witness of the deed. ( 7 ) THE first appellate Court considered the entire evidence again and on scanning the evidence came to the following findings which are relevant for disposal of the issue as to whether any substantial question of law is involved or not, which are quoted hereinbelow:-"the learned lawyer pf the respondent has contended that it is admitted fact that the plaintiff is an illiterate person. It is the duty of the transferee who obtain benefit from the alleged transfer made by illiterate person to prove that the content of the deed was read over and explained to him. But the deed yiz. exht. 1 does not reveal that the same was read over and explained to the plaintiff. In support of his contentions he has referred several rulings, viz. AIR 1963 Supreme court 1203, 66 CWN 255, AIR 1986 Gouhati 71. He has further contended that the defendants have not examined the person from whom the Defendant No. 1 obtained consideration money for making payment of the property in Schedule Kha. He has further contended that he is possessing the same property in Schedule Kha. He has further contended that he is possessing the same property and has been paying rent to the Government. Thus the decree passed by the learned Munsif is justified and the same is liable to be upheld. Let us scan the evidence on record viz. oral and documentary to see how far the argument of the learned lawyer of the respondent is tenable. It is fact that the plaintiff is an illiterate person. But it is reflected in the evidence on record that the plaintiff purchased some of the properties as shown in Ka schedule by himself and by his brother roushan Molla. this, he has to go to Registration Office to purchase the same. Ext. C, the certified copy of the deed which reflects that the plaintiff purchased some of the plots from Matin Molla and Ext. D reflects the plaintiff purchased some of the plots from Sahanara Bibi. The two deeds prove that the plaintiff though he is an illiterate man has had the knowledge of worldly affairs. He has acquaintance with the Registration Office to register the immovable property. Thus, the rulings AIR 1963, Supreme Court 1203, 66 CWN 255, AIR 1986 Gouhati 71 do not hold good in the instant suit. ""the plff. had sufficient knowledge about the worldly affairs, as such it cannot be expected that while he put L. T. I. at the Registration office he must not remain idle as to the reason of putting L. T. I. in the registry Office. ""the plff. had sufficient knowledge about the worldly affairs, as such it cannot be expected that while he put L. T. I. at the Registration office he must not remain idle as to the reason of putting L. T. I. in the registry Office. It would be quite natural if he puts his L. T. I. at the hospital or at the Chamber of a Doctor then doubt might not arise, but while he put his L. T. I. in the Sub-Registry Office he ought to find out the reasons as to taking the L. T. I. on some papers. It is curious that he did not take any information as regard putting his L. T. I. from 1984 to 1992 during the lapse of about 8 years. It is also reflected that the plaintiff has not transferred all of his property, but he transferred some part of his property in favour of the defendant No. 1. If the defendant no. 1 and defendant No. 4 had ill motive as to alienation of the property then they would take the entire property of the plaintiff not the part. Thus the presumption is that the plaintiff alienated the same property in favour of the defendant No. 1 with full knowledge. ""on the other hand, P. W. 1 has stated in his examination in chief that he was taken to Registry Office Where on he put his L. T. Is. It has also been cited that he had sufficient knowledge about the worldly affairs and he ought to take information about the cause of putting l. T. I. on the written papers. Besides, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he refused to execute the deeds in presence of the Registrar. ""it is also reflected in the evidence on record that the plaintiff has not married as yet. D. W.-2 Matin Molla has stated in his cross-examination that the plaintiff has not yet married any other woman. From this statement no presumption can be drawn. On the other hand, it is alleged that the transfer took place in the year 1984. Since then, the defendant No. 1 had been residing with the plaintiff till 1992. During that period they lived together in peace and no dispute or quarrel arose between them. From this statement no presumption can be drawn. On the other hand, it is alleged that the transfer took place in the year 1984. Since then, the defendant No. 1 had been residing with the plaintiff till 1992. During that period they lived together in peace and no dispute or quarrel arose between them. If the defendants had any ill motive as to making fraud in respect of the property of the plaintiff then the defendant No. 1 would leave the company of her husband from 1984 and would live separately. It is fact that there are some anomalies in the evidence of the defendants. But it is the settled principle that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs, not upon the fault of the defendants. The plaintiff has to prove as to his own case and the plff. cannot get the benefit or advantage by the fault of laches of the defendants. ""the defendant No. 1 has also state that she has transferred some of her plots in favour of defendant No. 5 and 6. During their possession the plff. also has purchased some of the lands from defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the year 1991. Thus, it is not clear that the property which was in the possession of the plaintiff, why he would purchase which was in the possession of the plaintiff, from the defendant nos. 5 and 6 in the year 1991 ? Thus, he had the full knowledge that he transferred the same property to the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 by hebanama. By purchasing some of the plots from defendant Nos. 5 and 6 he began to possess the same. This means that the plaintiff had the knowledge about the said transfer to defendant No. 1 in the year 1991, more clearly on 16. 7. 91. " ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid findings on scanning the evidence in details, the first appellate Court accordingly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had the knowledge about the execution and registration of the deed and accordingly, reversed the judgment and decree under appeal thereto, and thereby the suit was dismissed. 7. 91. " ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid findings on scanning the evidence in details, the first appellate Court accordingly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had the knowledge about the execution and registration of the deed and accordingly, reversed the judgment and decree under appeal thereto, and thereby the suit was dismissed. ( 9 ) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant has invited this Court to the factual matrix of the case by scanning the evidence on record for the purpose of identifying the submission as made that there is a substantial question of law involved herein on issue of shifting the onus of proof to the defendant which was not properly discharged. From the aforesaid findings and observations as already quoted by this Court, it is clearthat the first appellate court, which is the last Court to determine and consider the factual matters, on scanning the evidence, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had the knowledge of execution of the deed and as the plaintiff subsequently purchased the property, which was not disclosed in the plaint, the conduct of the plaintiff sufficiently proved the fact that the plaintiff had knowledge of worldly affairs. Furthermore, the Court considered the evidence of the plaintiff where the plaintiff categorically deposed that he was taken to the Registry office and on some papers signatures were taken. Having regard to all these and identifying the factual matrix once the last Court of fact decided the issue and when there is no perversity of such findings, this Court is of the view that the application of the legal proposition about shifting of the onus in respect of illiterate person right had been rejected by the learned Court below on holding that the plaintiff had knowledge of wordly affairs to understand the execution of a deed due to the very oral evidence of the plaintiff himself who deposed that he was in the Registry Office to sign some papers. The deposition aforesaid by the plaintiff practically had destroyed the root of allegation of fraud about taking signature in some papers for medical treatment, as when a person signs papers in a Registry Office surely it cannot be said as signing of papers for medical treatment. The deposition aforesaid by the plaintiff practically had destroyed the root of allegation of fraud about taking signature in some papers for medical treatment, as when a person signs papers in a Registry Office surely it cannot be said as signing of papers for medical treatment. The question of law involved therein, namely, the shifting of onus to prove a document by the defendant in the event the plaintiff is a pardanashin lady and/or illiterate having no knowledge of worldly affairs is required to be judged and to be answered on the reflection and foundation of the factual matrix of the case. The factual matrix leads to the point that the plaintiff visited the Registry office on the particular date, signed some papers therein and thereafter since the year 1984 to 1991, there was no agitation by the plaintiff, and on the contrary, the plaintiff purchased those properties from the subsequent purchasers of the property from the wife/defendant No. 1. All these factual points were considered and analysed by the learned Court below to answer the legal question involved thereto as already mentioned. That question is only a question of law based on analysis of facts as proved, which was determined on the reflection of evidence on record and that question cannot be considered as a substantial question of law for being looked into on the reflection of evidence on record by re-scanning the same by the Court of second appeal. ( 10 ) IT is a settled law now that in view of amendment of Section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure that only substantial question of law as involved could be considered and answered by the second appellate Court. A substantial question of law has been defined in the judgment in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tewari (Deceased) by Lrs. reported in 2001 (3) SCC 179 , wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that a substantial question of law is a question which carries a substance and/or a specific involvement thereto for an answer, but it does not mean only a legal question of law. reported in 2001 (3) SCC 179 , wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that a substantial question of law is a question which carries a substance and/or a specific involvement thereto for an answer, but it does not mean only a legal question of law. It has been further held that if there is non-application of a legal question of law as already settled either by the apex Court or by a Division Bench of High Court in that angle by the fact finding court, that cannot be considered as a substantial question of law involved. That will be nothing but erroneous application of the question of law involved thereto by the first appellate Court and forthat reason, a second appeal is not maintainable as it could not be said that it is in the field of substantial question of law for a decision by the second appellate Court. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to such legal position, this Court is of the view that there is no substantial question of law involved as alleged, which was framed. Accordingly, this second appeal fails and it stands dismissed. The judgment and decree of first appellate Court is thus confirmed. There will be no order as to costs.