JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nohar camp Bhadra in Civil Appeal No. 8/1993, came to be admitted on 19.05.1995 but without formulating any substantial question of law. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised the preliminary objection that being the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be considered without the Court formulating the substantial question of law; and in the present case, no substantial question of law being involved, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh and Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1749 and Narayanan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Ors. : 2009 AIR SCW 2357 . 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that even if the substantial questions of law were not formulated at the time of admission of the appeal, this appeal does involve substantial question of law as to whether the land which was never the property of the Panchayat could have been sold by the Panchayat and could become private property when it is recorded in the revenue record as a cremation ground ? 4. The submissions so made do not lead to substantial question of law worth consideration in this case. It has been concurrently found by the two courts that some of the pattas sought to be questioned in the suit were issued in the year 1960 and there was no reason or justification that the same were sought to be questioned 28 years later. The learned Courts have also concurrently held that there was no proof on the part of the plaintiff that the property in question was being used as cremation ground. The learned Courts have also concurrently held that there was no proof on the part of the plaintiff that the property in question was being used as cremation ground. The learned Appellate Court has said:- " vr% ;g Hkwfe 'ke'kku ds :i esa mi;ksx esa vk jgh gks] ;g ckr oknhx.k vihykFkhZx.k zekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgs gSaA blds foijhr ;g Hkh fopkj.kh; fcUnq gS fd blh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa chjcy dk iV~Vk izn'kZ ,] 1 vkSj tqxyky dk iV~Vk izn'kZ ,] 3] jkes'oj dk iV~Vk izn'kZ ,] 1 vkSj pqUuh dk iV~Vk izn'kZ ,] 4 Hkh is'k gSA buesa tqxyky dk iV~Vk rks 1960 dk gSA Qwlkjke Lo;a ;g ekurk gS fd 1960 esa iV~Vs tkjh gq, gSa ysfdu ftldh vihy djus ij [kkfjt djok;s FksA esjs le{k vihy dh LVst ij xzke iapk;r eylhlj dk ,d fu.kZ; izLrqr gqvk ftlesa tqxyky] pqUuhjke] lghjke ij tqekZuk dCtk u gVkus ds dkj.k fd;k x;k ysfdu bl fu.kZ; dk vf/kd egRo ugha jgrkA ek= iV~Vk ysus nsus voS/k fy[k nsus ek= ls iV~Vs ds fujLr djus dh dk;Zokgh fof/kor~ gqbZ gks] ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl rjg izfroknhx.k iV~Vksa ds rgr dkfct gSaA ;g ckr Hkh izekf.kr ugha gS fd 'ke'kku dh Hkwfe ds :i esa ;g Hkwfe dke esa vk jgh gksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn'kZ 2 esa flok; pd dh Hkwfe tks fn[kkbZ gqbZ gS ysfdu ckotwn blds ekSds dh fLFkfr fHkUu gSA bl Hkwfe dk vkaoVu jktLFkku iapk;r fu;e 1960 ls igys dk gh gSA ,slh lwjr esa mu fu;eksa dks iwoZxkeh izHkko ugha fn;k tk ldrk vkSj vkoaVu 1960 esa gksus ds dkj.k bu fu;eksa ds vk/kkj ij bl vkoaVu dks voS/k ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl ckr dh tkudkjh lnSo ls oknh vihykFkhZ dks jgh gS fd ;s iV~Vs 1960 esa tkjh gq,A bldk izek.k mlds vkSj xzkeh.kksa dh vksj ls fn, x, fnukad 3-8-72 ds izkFkZuk i=ksa ls izrhr gksrk gS vkSj Lo;a oknh vihykFkhZ Qwlkjke viuh ftjg esa Hkh ekurk gSA vr% yxHkx 28 o"kZ ckn bl ckrk dks pqukSrh mlds }kjk nkos ds :i esa nh tk jgh gSA dqy feyk dj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks eSa fof/k fo:) ugha ikrk vkSj blesa gLr{ksi dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA izLrqr uthjsa fHkUu ekeyksa esa nh gqbZ gSA vr% os Hkh vihykFkhZ ds fy, mi;ksxh ugha dh tk ldrhA vihy vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA " 5. The findings aforesaid cannot be said to be perverse so as to require interference in appeal at the instance of the appellant who otherwise appear having no personal interest in the matter. 6. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed but with no order as to costs.Second Appeal dismissed. *******