Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—Present Second Appeal is filed posing the following substantial questions of law:— “1. Whether the lower appellate court has committed substantial error in not framing points for determination and not rendering its own decision with reasons on each of the issues/points by appreciating the evidence on record independently. 2. Whether the appellate court below justified in concurring with the findings of Trial Court by reprinting the judgment of Trial without examining the evidence on record. 3. Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below with regard to ouster are sustainable to the effect that there is no denial of defendant to give share to plaintiffs on the basis that the son of the defendant Mr. Ramniklal Ex.72 has admitted in his cross-examination that his father has never told to the plaintiffs that he does not want to give share to them form the properties. 4. Whether the Courts below are justified in totally ignoring the evidence of plaintiff, in his cross-examination the plaintiff No. 1 has admitted that he left Rampar 50 years back and plaintiff No. 2 left Rampar 46 years back; and as per cross-examination, the plaintiff No. 1 was aware about the loan obtained in the year 1965 for agricultural purpose; It is required to be noted that at the time of obtaining loan, revenue records were produced in bank, which were in the name of Gangashankar Dave, so it can’t be believed that the plaintiff had no knowledge of revenue records; It is also admitted that both of them visiting Rampar; It is also admitted by him that after leaving Rampar he never inquired from Gangashankar about the agricultural land and proceeds; It is stated by the plaintiff No. 1 in his cross-examination that at the time of obtaining loan from, the land was in the name of three brothers; and it is denied that at the time of obtaining loan, the land was in the name of Gangashankar; It is also stated in his cross-examination that after the death of Premshankar, he has no knowledge about any application given to insert the names of heirs of Premshankar in revenue records and it is also stated that he had not given any application. 5. 5. Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within time on the basis that the plaintiff have knowledge about the entry only before one year prior to the filing of the suit; which is totally contrary to the evidence on record and as per Article 65 the period of Limitation is 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. 6. Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the elements of adverse possession are not proved in the present case. 7. Whether the preliminary decree is executable, when the plaintiffs didn’t care for final decree and it is time barred when the appeal is disposed of i.e. on 29.4.09; though it was ordered that the suit was adjourned for making final decree on 30.6.1995. 8. Whether the Courts below are justified in totally ignoring the plaint, wherein there are no averments to the effect that the plaintiffs had entrusted their share of immovable properties to his brother to look after it and return the same to them on their return along with the usufruct or income derived from their share of the immovable properties. 9. Whether the orders passed by both the Courts below are passed after considering evidence on record and considering legal aspect of the case in proper perspective. 10. Whether findings of fact are perverse and given by misreading of evidence by both the Courts below and view taken by the Courts below is so perverse that no reasonable person of ordinary prudence could have taken that view. 11. Whether findings of fact by both the Courts below are also perverse on the count that it is based on failure to take into consideration the relevant evidence on record and the Courts below have acted on irrelevant materials. 12. Whether both the Courts below decided the matter contrary to the provisions and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 2. The short facts of the case briefly stated are that the suit being (Old Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 1985) converted into Regular Civil Suit No. 304 of 1993 came to be filed before learned 2nd Civil Judge (J.D.), Gondal. 2. The short facts of the case briefly stated are that the suit being (Old Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 1985) converted into Regular Civil Suit No. 304 of 1993 came to be filed before learned 2nd Civil Judge (J.D.), Gondal. After hearing the parties on the basis of the evidence, the suit came to be dismissed and it has been specifically observed that the plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 have 1/3 share in the agricultural land in question. The specific contention which has been raised with regard to the partition and the adverse possession have been discussed and against the said judgment, Regular Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1995 came to be filed before learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Gondal which also came to be dismissed confirming the order of the trial court vide judgment and order dated 29th April, 2009. Therefore, the present Second Appeal has been filed posing the substantial questions of law as stated above. 3. Mr. Tushar Sheth, learned Advocate for appellant has tried to make his submissions with regard to two aspect i.e. (i) the adverse possession and (ii) hostile title which has been claimed by the present appellant-original defendant has not been believed erroneously and for that purpose, he has also referred to the papers including some of the testimony of evidence and other documentary evidences. He has submitted with regard to the entries in the revenue record and the position as prevailed with regard to the land in question. He has submitted that the Court has not believed that the plea of ouster on the basis of evidence has not been appreciated, and, therefore, present appeal may be admitted. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1957 SC 314 and emphasized the observations made in para:4. 4. He has made this submission again referring to the entries to emphasize that they were in possession throughout and, therefore, both the Courts have erred in arriving at the conclusion. He has also referred to and relied upon judgment reported in 2003 (0) AIJ-AP-403039 in the case of Godi Jayarami Reddy vs. Siddamurthy Jayarami Reddy (Since deceased). He has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (12) SCC 310 equivalent to 2009 (8) Scale 463 in the case of Bonder and Anr. He has also referred to and relied upon judgment reported in 2003 (0) AIJ-AP-403039 in the case of Godi Jayarami Reddy vs. Siddamurthy Jayarami Reddy (Since deceased). He has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (12) SCC 310 equivalent to 2009 (8) Scale 463 in the case of Bonder and Anr. vs. Hem Singh (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. and submitted that it has observed in that judgment that the entry in the revenue record showing name of one of the parties have not been considered. He has also submitted that the lower appellate Court has also failed to raise these issues and decide the same. He has submitted that the First Appeal is the right of the party and issues with regard to controversy involved have to be framed and decided which the lower appellate Court has failed, and, therefore, present Second Appeal may be admitted. In support of this submission, learned Advocate Mr. Sheth has referred to and relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2001) 4 SCC 756 in the case of Madhukar and Ors. vs. Sangram and another. 5. In view of submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Sheth for the appellant, it is required to be considered whether present Second Appeal deserves to be entertained or not. 6. For that purpose, it is required to be considered whether any question of law much less substantial question of law can be said to have been arisen. As it is evident from the questions arose and the evidence discussed, there are two concurrent findings of facts given by both the courts below on the basis of material and evidences which have been discussed in detail. Though the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Sheth for the appellant with regard to the failure to appreciate the evidence by both the courts below and claim of adverse possession has been made, it is categorically discussed in both the judgments and such a plea has not been accepted on the basis of evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below on the basis of material and evidences. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below on the basis of material and evidences. It may be recalled that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the catena of judicial pronouncement, has laid down the guidelines and general principles with regard to limited scope of discretion under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Second Appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 in the case of Gurdev Kaur and Ors. vs. Kaki and Ors. has laid down guidelines or the general principles to exercise discretion under Section 100 of CPC after the 1976 amendment. It has been specifically observed that the High Court can interfere only where substantial questions of law are involved and those questions have been clearly formulated in the memorandum of appeal. It has also been emphasized that the amendment clearly indicates that legislature never intended second appeal to become “third trial on facts”. Again emphasizing on this aspect in Para-70, the elaborate discussion has been made with regard to scope of discretion as to when the substantial questions of law can be said to have been arisen even on the issue of facts which have been discussed. In the facts of the present case, as discussed above, it is not the case of the appellant-original defendant that any material and evidence has to be appreciated or documentary evidence has not been considered. This judgment has also been subsequently reported in other judgments including the judgment reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. S. N. Goyal. 7. Another facet of the argument with regard to issues having not been properly framed by the lower appellate Court, and, therefore, contention has been raised referring to judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2001) 4 SCC 756 in the case of Madhukar and others vs. Sangram and others, where it has been specifically observed that if the court below has discussed and considered the issue or controversy involved in the matter it would be sufficient compliance of the provisions of law and, therefore, merely because there was no specific focus on the issue while framing the issue separately, it would not render the judgment perverse or illegal as sought to be canvassed. Even the judgment which has not been cited including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1957 SC 314 in the case of P. Lakshmi Reddy vs. (sic) would not apply to facts as it has been specifically observed in that judgment quoting the earlier judgment that, “It is a settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster. This does not necessarily meant that there must be an express demand by one and denial by the other.” 8. It is also observed with regard to burden of making out ouster is on the person claiming to displace the lawful title of a co-hair by his adverse possession, and, therefore, as discussed when both the courts below have given findings based on evidence produced, it would not justify the interference with the concurrent findings of facts of courts below. 9. In the result, present Second Appeal cannot be entertained and dismissed in limine as no substantial question of law can be said to have been arisen. 10. In view of order passed in Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 11965 of 2010 does not survive and, therefore, it stands disposed of accordingly. P P P P P