POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Surendra Tewari, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. ( 2 ) THE claim of the plaintiff-appellant is that he is owner in possession over Plot Nos. 16-Kha (area 2 biswa), 16-Ga (area 12 biswa), 8-Da (area 1 biswa), 8-Ja (area 7 biswa) and 6-Ka (area 3 biswa) (hereinafter referred as the land in dispute) situated in Village Parasi, Pargana Singrauli, Tehsil duddhi, District Sonbhadra. Original Suit No 9/93 was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant along with respondent Nos. 3 to 6 against the defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claiming relief of permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession and from raising any construction over the land in dispute. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed their written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and also pleaded that the land in dispute was acquired for Northern Coal Fields Ltd. (N. C. L. ). The suit was dismissed on 18. 9. 1998, against which civil Appeal No. 35 of 1998 was preferred which also stands dismissed on 24. 12. 2007. Both the judgments are under challenge in this appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel has emphatically argued that the Courts below committed an error of law while ignoring the Commissioners report in as much as commissioner reported that the plaintiff-appellant was in possession. The findings recorded by the two Courts have been assailed secondly on the ground that the Courts could not have gone beyond the pleadings since the relief claimed was against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 only and not against N. C. L. The findings arrived at by the two Courts that the land in dispute belongs to n. C. L. is perverse and liable to be quashed. A number of questions of law has been raised in this appeal claiming to be substantial questions of law which arises in the instant second appeal. The main thrust of argument by the learned counsel is that no relief of injunction was prayed against N. C. L. , injunction could not be refused specially when the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no claim and title over the land in dispute, the Courts had no option but to grant injunction. On perusal of the two judgments, it transpire that earlier an order dated 25. 5. 1 and 2 have no claim and title over the land in dispute, the Courts had no option but to grant injunction. On perusal of the two judgments, it transpire that earlier an order dated 25. 5. 1990 was passed by the Deputy Collector/a. R. O. In case No. 389 and 806/850 declaring the appellant to be Bhumidhar with transferable right. However, this order was set at naught by subsequent order dated 9. 9. 1992 and 11. 3. 1993. Learned counsel states that since these two orders have been passed behind his back, it has no relevance and can not be used against him. It is also admitted that the two orders dated 9. 9. 1992 and 11. 3. 1993 have never been challenged before any Court. Learned Counsel submits that the appellant continued to be in possession and, therefore, he could not be refused injunction against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No relief was claimed against the N. C. L. and, therefore, the Courts below grossly erred in law in refusing the relief of injunction. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex court, M. Kallappa Setty v. M. V. Lakshminarayana Rao, AIR 1972 SC 2299 . The emphasis is that the principles laid down in this decision by the Apex Court is that the plaintiff on strength of his possession can resist interference from defendant who has no better title than himself and get injunction restraining defendant from disturbing his possession. No doubt the plaintiff can be granted injunction but in the instant case it was specific pleading in the written statement that the property in question belongs to N. C. L. and there is no interference on the part of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 whatsoever, therefore, the Courts have rightly come to a conclusion that the injunction if at all should have been claimed against N. C. L. Learned Counsel has also placed findings on two issues regarding non-joinder of N. C. L. as a party and maintainability of suit which was decided as a preliminary issue. The Courts have recorded a finding that since injunction has been claimed against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and not n. C. L. , if the plaintiff has chosen not to array N. C. L. , the suit is not bad. The two preliminary issues were decided on 15. 5. The Courts have recorded a finding that since injunction has been claimed against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and not n. C. L. , if the plaintiff has chosen not to array N. C. L. , the suit is not bad. The two preliminary issues were decided on 15. 5. 1996 in favour of appellants. Copy of the order deciding the two issues is Annexure-4 to the stay application. However, it was clearly pleaded in the written statement that neither they ate interfering nor they have a right to claim possession of the land in dispute. The Courts can not be expected to be oblivious of the correct situation and grant blanket injunction in the garb of no relief being claimed against the N. C. L. The courts were conscious that the actual owner will substantially be prejudiced for whose benefit disputed property has admittedly been acquired and there are two judgments pertaining to the years 1992 and 1993 in his favour. ( 4 ) THE next decision relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant is Rame gowda (dead) By LRs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) By LRs and others, 2004 54 ALR 725. This decision has been placed in support of the argument that a person who is in "settled possession" can not be dispossessed without recourse to law, even the trespassers are entitled to protection. The two aforesaid decisions are absolutely correct but this is the plaintiffs appeal and if injunction has been refused, it does not negate the principle of law. The two Courts have refused to grant the relief claimed after a specific issue on the question of ownership and possession has been framed and that has been decided by the two Courts against the plaintiff. In view of the negative findings on the question of possession, the injunction has been refused by the two Courts. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, it is evident that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the two Courts against the appellant are concluded by finding of fact while refusing the injunction. The Courts have taken into consideration the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. This Court can not interfere in the conclusions and reappraise the evidence at this stage. The emphasis on the commissioners report having been ignored is also of no consequence. The Courts have taken into consideration the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. This Court can not interfere in the conclusions and reappraise the evidence at this stage. The emphasis on the commissioners report having been ignored is also of no consequence. This alone is not enough for interference under section 100 C. P. C. No substantial question of law arises though the learned Counsel has framed as many as six questions of law but none of them merit admission of the instant second appeal. ( 6 ) THE Apex Court in the recent case of Santosh Hazari v. Purshottam Tiwari, 2001 42 ALR 794, ruled that a point of law which admits of no two opinions may be preposition of law but can not be a substantial question of law. To be substantial a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of the each case whether a question of law is substantial one and involved in the case or not ?the same view has been expressed by the Apex Court in rajeshivari v. Puran Indoria, 2005 61 ALR 145, and Govinda Raju v. Mariamman, 2005 59 ALR 133. ( 7 ) IN view of what has been stated above, I am not inclined to interfere in the present second appeal in exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 C. P. C. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed. .