JUDGMENT Appellants(defendants) dissatis­fied with the appellate judgment and decree have filed the instant Civil 2nd Appeal. It is trite that in view of the man­date contained in Section 100 CPC, Civil 2nd Appeal can be maintained only when substantial question of law emerge for determination, not other­wise. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment captioned Veerayee Ammal Vs. Seeni Ammal ({2002} 1 SCC 134) has held: "Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") was amended by amending Act 104 of 1976 mak­ing it obligatory upon the High Court to entertain the second ap­peal only if it was satisfied that the case involved substantial question of law. Such question of law has to be precisely stated in the memorandum of appeal and formulated by the High Court in its judgment, for decision. The appeal can be heard only on the question so formulated, giving lib­erty to the respondent to argue that the case before the High court did not involve any such question. The amending Act was introduced on the basis of vari­ous Law Commission reports rec­ommending making of appropri­ate provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure which were intended to minimize the litigation, to give the litigant a fair trial in accor­dance with the accepted prin­ciples of natural justice, to expe­dite the disposal of civil suits and proceedings so that justice is not delayed, to avoid complicated procedure, to ensure fair deal to the poor sections of the commu­nity and restrict the second ap­peals only on such questions which are certified by the Courts to be substantial question of law. We have noticed with distress that despite amendment, the pro­visions of Section 100 of the Code have been liberally construed and generously applied by some Judges of the High Courts with the result that objective intended to be achieved by the amendment of Section 10O appears to have been frustrated. Even before the amendment of Section 10O of the Code, the concurrent finding of facts could not be disturbed in the second appeal. Even before the amendment of Section 10O of the Code, the concurrent finding of facts could not be disturbed in the second appeal. This Court in Paras Nath Thakur v. Mohani Dasi held (AIR p. 1205, para 3): "It is well settled by a long se­ries of decisions of the Judi­cial Committee of the Privy Council and of this Court, that a High Court, on second appeal, cannot go into ques­tions of fact, however, errone­ous the findings of fact re­corded by the courts of fact may be. It is not necessary to cite those decisions. Indeed, the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents did not and could not contend that the High Court was competent to go behind the finds of fact concurrently recorded by the two courts of fact." 2. Litigation has to be set at rest at some point of time. Litigative process in between the parties has started from the year 1981, by now for last three decades parties have been litigating. Further continuation of the litigation shall be permissible only when sub­stantial question of law emerges, oth­erwise appeal is not to be maintained so as to give quietus to the litigation. 3. The defendants (appellants herein) in the memo of appeal have formulated four questions to be treated as substan­tial questions of law whether such questions can be formulated as sub­stantial questions of law, precisely fac­tual matrix has to be noticed. 4. Kuti and Kamla were two broth­ers. Kuti was married to Vidya Devi, from their wedlock three children were born. Vidya Devi and said three chil­dren are the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs). Kamla was married to Sukh Dai. The said Sukh Dai has given birth to four children. Sukh Dai and four children are appel­lants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). 5. Sukh Dai after the death of her husband Kamla claimed to have mar­ried Kuti and from the said wedlock four children are claimed to have born. Af­ter the death of Kuti succession muta­tion has been attested in favour of both plaintiffs and defendants which was challenged by the plaintiffs without success as they were directed to get the controversy resolved from the Civil Court. 6. Af­ter the death of Kuti succession muta­tion has been attested in favour of both plaintiffs and defendants which was challenged by the plaintiffs without success as they were directed to get the controversy resolved from the Civil Court. 6. Plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 2.1.1981 before the Court of Sub Judge, Udhampur registered as file No. 79-Civil pleading therein that Kuti owned and possessed land measuring 10 kanals 11-3/5 marla situated at Rathian, after his death plaintiffs be­ing legal heirs are in possession of the suit property, the defendants are not the legal heirs of deceased Kuti, there­fore, they shall be restrained from claiming to be the legal heirs of de­ceased Kuti. It has also been alleged in the plaint that Kuti had executed document i.e. will deed on 30th Decem­ber, 1974 in favour of plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 which is enough to show that it is only plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 who are the children of Kuti. It is further alleged that the defendant No. 1 Sukh Dai was neither the widow of deceased Kuti nor defendants No. 2 to 5 were born to Sukh Dai from Kuti deceased, the defendants started interference with the suit prop­erty. The plaintiffs have finally prayed that they be declared alone as the le­gal heirs of the deceased, furthermore defendants shall be permanently re­strained from causing any interference with the suit property. 7. On the other hand defendants in the written statement have pleaded that both plaintiff No. 1 Mst. Vidya Devi and the defendant No. 1 Sukh Dai were married to Kuti, from the wedlock of Vidya Devi and Kuti plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are born whereas from the wedlock of Sukh Dai and Kuti defendants No. 2 to 5 are born, so both are legal heirs of the deceased. It is also pleaded that Sukh Dai was firstly married to Kamla and from their wedlock no child was born and it is after the death of Kamla, Sukh Dai was married to Kuti and it is only thereafter defendants No. 2 to 5 were born. 8. On the basis of respective plead­ings of the parties, as many as four is­sues were framed which reads as un­der:- "Whether the plaintiffs alone are the legal heirs of the property left behind by deceased Kuti? 8. On the basis of respective plead­ings of the parties, as many as four is­sues were framed which reads as un­der:- "Whether the plaintiffs alone are the legal heirs of the property left behind by deceased Kuti? (OPP) Whether Kuti deceased had legally entered into marriage with the mother of defendants 2 to 5 and as such the defendants also are entitled to inherit the property of deceased as legal heirs?(OPD) Whether the document of will dated 30-12-1974 has been executed by deceased Kuti out of his own free will and without coercion?(OPP) To what relief the plaintiffs are en­titled to?(OPP)" 9. Issue No. 1 and 3 have been dealt with together by the trial court. On scanning evidence as produced by both the parties, trial court has recorded finding that the defendants have not been able to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have amply proved that they alone are the legal heirs of deceased Kuti and have also proved that Kamla, brother of Kuti, was mar­ried to Sukh Dai and after the death of Kamla, Mst. Sukh Dai settled in the house of her husband situated at Kashyrah and did not re-marry with Kuti deceased. The witnesses have also proved that the document of will dated 30.12.1974 was executed by Kuti out of his own free will. 10. The position of the plaintiffs be­ing legal heirs of deceased Kuti is ad­mitted even by the defendants but they also claim to be the legal heirs of de­ceased Kuti which they have not been able to prove, therefore, findings on is­sue No. 1 and 3 were recorded in favour of the plaintiffs. 11. While dealing with issue No. 2, trial court has noticed that an applica­tion marked as EXP-PC dated 16.11.1978 was filed by defendant No. 2 before Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur claiming defendants to be the legal heirs of deceased Kamla. Con­tents of the said application have been proved by the plaintiffs' witnesses, the position of the application has re­mained to be rebutted, wherein it has been specifically recorded that the de­fendants are the legal heirs of Kamla so have claimed compensation of the land which was owned by their father Kamla when in the application they have claimed compensation as being the legal heirs of Kamla and Sukh Dai, how they could claim to be the legal heirs of Kuti. The issue has also been decided against the defendants. Finally the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defen­dants. 12. The judgment and decree dated 31.3.1994, passed by Sub Judge, Udhampur was assailed by medium of an appeal before the first appellate court i.e. District Judge, Reasi. The learned District Judge after re-appre­ciating the evidence has maintained the findings recorded by the trial court, as such, judgment and decree of the trial court has been up-held. 13. Questions project in the memo of appeal are to be dealt with one by one so as to ascertain whether those can be formulated as substantial question of law. Question No. (A): Whether without determining date of death of Kamla and re-marriage of respondent No. 1 with Sh. Kuti when admittedly appellant No. 1 was living with Kamla as husband and wife for pretty long time and appellants 2 to 5 born out of the said union, whether the find­ings of the Courts below return a find­ing regarding the validity of marriage of appellant No. 1 with Kuti and pa­ternity of appellants 2 to 5 is perverse and contrary to the established pre­sumption available under law? This question cannot be termed to be a substantial question of law be­cause evidence has been led by the parties, same has been appreciated by both trial court as well as appellate court. Re-appreciation of the evidence shall be permissible only when findings are perverse. Both trial court as well as appellate court have appreciated the evidence, no perversity is noticed which would warrant formulation of question for determination. Question No. (B): Whether it was obligatory for the Courts below to give the concise statements of the state­ments of the witnesses recorded in the suit in the judgment including cross examination, which was the mandatory requirement of law in terms of order 18 rule 4(2) CPC as held in AIR 1969 SC 1167 ? Order 18 Rule 4(2) has been wrongly quoted instead of Order 20 Rule 4 CPC). The trial court has in-effect noticed the material depositions of the witnesses and has appreciated the same and then appellate court has also appreciated the evidence whatever was on record and reference to the deposi­tion has been made both by trial court as well as appellate court, therefore, mandate of Order 20 Rule 4 CPC has been substantially complied with. The trial court has in-effect noticed the material depositions of the witnesses and has appreciated the same and then appellate court has also appreciated the evidence whatever was on record and reference to the deposi­tion has been made both by trial court as well as appellate court, therefore, mandate of Order 20 Rule 4 CPC has been substantially complied with. It shall be quite relevant to quote follow­ing portion from para 6 of the judgment reported in AIR 1969 SC 1167 in the context of the ground as projected: ".....A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent rea­sons that suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not sup­ported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in sup­port of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest: it is also intended to ensure adju­dication of the matter according to law and the procedure estab­lished by law. A party to the dis­pute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The appellate court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just..." In the reported judgment it has been noticed that the trial judge had recorded no reasons in support of his conclusions and the High Court in ap­peal merely recorded that the plaintiff had sufficiently proved the case. While applying the law as laid to the present case, it is clear that both trial court as well as appellate court have appreci­ated the evidence and on proper appre­ciation have recorded reasons and the conclusion thereon, therefore, the judgment as relied on by the learned counsel is of no help to him, therefore, no substantial question of law arise for determination. Question No. (C): Whether the will dated 30-12-1974 executed by Sh. Question No. (C): Whether the will dated 30-12-1974 executed by Sh. Kuti relied upon by the respon­dents, was valid in view of the prohi­bition in view of Section 31 of Agrar­ian Reforms Act, as the Will pertains to agricultural land? The will deed dated 30-12-1974, as has been executed by Shri Kuti, has been proved. Section 31 of the Agrar­ian Reforms Act has no applicability, more so, the defendants have not been able to disprove the document (will deed). The will deed would suggest that defendants have been excluded from claiming any right vis-a-vis the prop­erty of the deceased Kuti. It being so, no question of law emerges on such count to be formulated as substantial question of law. Question No. (D): Whether reliance placed by the Courts below on the certified copy of application alleg­edly filed by the appellants for claim­ing compensation of the estate of Kamla is permissible and could the said document be read in evidence against the appellants without complying with the requirements of Sec­tion 145 of the Evidence Act? Application EXP-PC dated 16.11.1978 filed before the Deputy Com­missioner, Udhampur by the defen­dants, as proved by the plaintiffs, has not been refuted by the defendants. In terms of said application defendants have claimed to be the legal heirs of deceased Kamla, so it was for the de­fendants to disprove the contents of the application. Requirement of Section 145 of the Evidence Act in-effect has been complied with, therefore, no sub­stantial question of law emerges. The judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants (appellants) reported in AIR 1977 SC 1712 is of no help to him because the application EXP-PC was open to be rebutted by the defendants which they failed and their failure to refute the position of the said application has to be read against them in evidence. The defendants have failed to tender any explanation or to tender any clarification about the ap­plication EXP-PC. 14. On careful and thoughtful con­sideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record, no ques­tion of law emerges which could be for­mulated as substantial question of law for determination. Therefore, the in­stant Civil 2nd Appeal is not fit to be entertained, dismissed accordingly along with connected CMP. Decree be drawn up. 15. Copy of the judgment and the decree be certified to the appellant court. Therefore, the in­stant Civil 2nd Appeal is not fit to be entertained, dismissed accordingly along with connected CMP. Decree be drawn up. 15. Copy of the judgment and the decree be certified to the appellant court. Trial court record as well as ap­pellate court record be send back. ___________