ALOK K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and caveator/respondents and perused the record. ( 2 ) IT comes out from record that a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 20. 12. 1983 was filed before the Trial Court mainly on the ground of forgery and impersonation. The Trial Court framed four issues. The main two issues were in respect of the cancellation of sale deed on the grounds mentioned in the plaint and on the point of possession. The report of hand writing experts were filed from both the sides. In oral evidence from the side of the plaintiff besides himself, the only other witness examined was the hand writing expert. From the side of the defendant besides one of the defendants, Zakir Ali D. W. 2 was examined on the point of possession and Mansha Ram D. W. 4 was examined as witness of sale deed. Besides one hand writing expert was also examined. ( 3 ) ON issue No. 1 pertaining to cancellation of sale deed dated 20. 12. 1983 the Lower Court found that the prayer was for cancellation of sale deed dated 20. 12. 1983 as pleaded but the copy of some another sale deed dated 14. 12. 1983 was filed. Secondly, after evaluation of the oral evidence the Trial Court found that the plaintiff has examined only himself in his favour. No other witness was examined by him in support of his case. On the other hand, from the defendants side besides one of the defendants, one witness of sale deed namely mansha Ram was also examined who deposed that the sale deed was executed by plaintiff. The Trial Court also found the endorsement regarding passing of the consideration made by the Sub-Registrar as reliable. Such a presumption is, of course, rebuttable but it was found that the plaintiff could not rebut it by adducing any credible evidence. In respect of expert report filed from both the sides it was found that on the day when the plaintiff had to give his thumb-impression he came before the Court around 12. 00 noon saying that his thumb had been chopped off by the other side when he was coming to the Court. This allegation was denied from the other side. 00 noon saying that his thumb had been chopped off by the other side when he was coming to the Court. This allegation was denied from the other side. It was found that had it been so the plaintiff could have first gone to the hospital for first aid and then would have lodged report at some police station. But both the things were found wanting. However, in the circumstances, the plaintiffs application for referring his admitted signature on a vakalatnama in another Suit No. 185 of 1986 was allowed and the same was sent for comparison. As usual, the reports of the finger print experts from both the sides were in favour of their respective clients. In view of the finger print expert report versus another finger print experts report the Trial Court could not find any better case in favour of the plaintiff. One particular reason was also assigned by the Trial Court for not giving any credence to the expert reports. In the above vakalatnama besides the thumb-impression, signature of the plaintiff were also found appended which is against the normal practice. The Court below therefore could not place much reliance on the alleged admitted signature of the plaintiff. Therefore both the expert reports dealing with that signature were also not found worth relying. The Court below adhered to the basic principle that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs to prove his case. In comparison to plaintiffs sole evidence in his favour the Court below found the evidence adduced from the side of the defendant more probable and believable which consisted of one of the defendants and one witness of sale deed and therefore decided this main issue against the plaintiff. ( 4 ) IN respect of second issue pertaining to possession, the Court below found that except the oral evidence of plaintiff in his favour there was no other evidence. Though some irrigation slips were filed by plaintiff but in the absence of any number mentioned in those papers the Court refrained itself from placing any reliance on those papers. On the other hand, the Court believed the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant which on this point also consisted of one of the defendants and one more witness namely Zakir Ali. According to plaintiff this witness was a servant of defendant but he could not prove it. On the other hand, the Court believed the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant which on this point also consisted of one of the defendants and one more witness namely Zakir Ali. According to plaintiff this witness was a servant of defendant but he could not prove it. Moreover, the recital in the sale deed regarding possession was also taken into consideration in favour of the defendant. This issue was also thus decided against the plaintiff/appellant and finally the suit was dismissed. ( 5 ) IN the first appeal, after mentioning all the issues the Appellate Court below reappraised all the aforesaid points and reached to the same conclusions. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this judgment is not in accordance with Order XLI, Rule 31. He emphasizes that the points of determination have not been specifically framed. The aforesaid rule does not prescribe any proforma for this purpose. Though the points for determination were not framed by the Appellate Court below in a tabular form but all the points in issue were duly discussed and considered in a sequence. Therefore, I regret in not finding any substance in this argument also. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant further submits that the First appellate Court ought to have invoked the provision of Order XLI, Rule 27 (1) (b), C. P. C. This is an enabling provision which is meant for the Court and if the appellate Court so requires it can accord direction for production of such document or any witness to enable it to pronounce the judgment. ( 7 ) IN this regard the learned Counsel also placed reliance on para-17 in andhra State Waqf Board Hyderabad v. All India Shia Conference, 2000 3 SCC 528 . The facts of the aforesaid case law were different from the present case hence it has no application here. Secondly, this case law nowhere says that it is mandatory for the First Appellate Court to invoke this provision even if there is no necessity. As said before, it depends on the facts of each and every case and in the present case the Appellate Court did not find it necessary because the parties had sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence on this point and they did adduce evidence. Even finger print experts were also examined. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this argument also. Even finger print experts were also examined. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this argument also. ( 8 ) IN the memo of appeal the following substantial questions of law have been proposed: (i) Whether the Trial Court erred in not allowing the appellant to get the report from Government expert when appellants expert and respondents expert have given favourable reports to the appellant and respondents respectively and Trial Court himself doubted over the genuineness of appellants report though Trial Court can not act as an expert which is settled proposition of law. (ii) Whether the Appellate Court erred in not using power under Order xli, Rule 27 (1) (b) of C. P. C. when it find difficulty in deciding the genuineness of experts reports and deciding the case against the record. (iii) Whether both the Courts below erred in not taking into account that mutation entry on the basis of forged sale deed has been quashed by paraganadhikari Nawabanj, and name of the appellant has been restored vide its order dated 23. 5. 1988. (iv) Whether both the Courts below erred in overlooking the Sub divisional Officer Nawabganj Barabanki order dated 23. 5. 1988 regarding the possession and name of the appellant and deciding the issue No. 2 against the facts records and settled law of the land against the appellant. (v) Whether both Court below erred in deciding issue No. 2 in favour of the defendants in absence of delivery of possession of disputed land and absence of document showing delivery of possession and continuance of possession of respondents over the disputed lands. (vi) Whether the Trial Court erred in doubting the genuineness of the document kept in the custody of Bank and thus making his order perverse bad in law being contrary to the presumption as to document as is given in The Indian Evidence Act (sections 74, 80, 81) and same mistake is committed by Appellate Court and thus depriving the appellant to get justice on the basis of settled law of land. (vii) Whether by not considering the cogent documentary as well as oral evidence and ignoring the settled legal position and allow their surmises and presumptions prevail over it both the Court below committed manifest error of law making their judgment bad in law and perverse one. (vii) Whether by not considering the cogent documentary as well as oral evidence and ignoring the settled legal position and allow their surmises and presumptions prevail over it both the Court below committed manifest error of law making their judgment bad in law and perverse one. (viii) Whether by ignoring, since receipts the proof of possession and ownership submitted by appellant having only this disputed land on the basis that receipts do not disclose land numbers by both Courts below is nothing but deliberately, illegally shutting their eyes from the truth and coming to the illegal, illogical conclusion against the record of case, against the settled law making their judgments perverse and bad in law. (ix) Whether while recording its finding on issue No. 1 the learned Trial court has totally failed to follow the well settled procedure that where it is not possible to obtain evidence which conclusively establishes or rebuts the allegations of the case, the case must be dealt with on reasonable probabilities and legal inferences arising from proved oradmitted facts. (x) Whether learned Court below erred in coming to conclusion that rights have been decided due to mutation entry dated 24. 2. 1984 in favour of the opposite parties which has been recalled by Paraganadhikari nawabganj, vide its order dated 23. 5. 1988 and disputed is pending and thus making his order bad in law. (xi) Whether the Trial Court erred in holding that in case of disputed expert reports Court must be neutral and contrary to its stand in the present case Trial Court became third expert and concurred with the expert opinion of the respondents expert without any cogent, intelligible reasons much against settled law of land. (xii) Whether Appellate Court judgment in violation of Order XLI, Rule 31 of Ciyil Procedure Code is a nullity. (xiii) Whether both the Courts below erred in not disclosing the reason for not accepting the expert report of appellant. ( 9 ) IN view of the discussion made hereinabove, none of the substantial questions of law as mentioned above arises in the present case. The Honble apex Court has laid down that the substantial question of law is sin-qua-non for jurisdiction of section 100, C. P. C. The substantial question of law has also been defined by Honble the Apex Court. The Honble apex Court has laid down that the substantial question of law is sin-qua-non for jurisdiction of section 100, C. P. C. The substantial question of law has also been defined by Honble the Apex Court. A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial question of law must be debatable not previously settled by law of land by a binding precedent and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case. To be a question of law involving in the case there must be first a foundation for it laid down in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the substantial findings of fact arrived at by Court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. As already discussed in the present case even the date of sale deed which has been sought to be cancelled is different from the date which is mentioned in the sale deed filed by none other than plaintiff himself. It is amazing that inspite of such a considerable time having been lapsed neither pleadings nor prayer has been got amended till date. Both the Courts below have concurrently held against the plaintiff and there does not arise any substantial question of law. There is also no perverse finding. As discussed above both the courts below have appreciated the evidence based upon pleadings and have correctly applied law to the issue framed therein. The judgments are sound and do not admit any error of law. There is also no misreading of evidence of miscar-riage of justice. ( 10 ) THE memo of appeal is, therefore, dismissed without admission. Appeal Dismissed. .