JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.04.2014 made in A.S.No.27 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2012 made in O.S.No.205 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants while assailing the concurrent findings of facts reached by both the courts below would submit that the second appellant was admittedly serving in the plaintiff's house as a housemaid from 1990. During the plaintiff's visit to abroad in the year 1995, the second defendant/ second appellant herein requested the plaintiff's husband to give the Schedule mentioned property for the purpose of staying for six months along with her family. After proper conciliation with the plaintiff, the plaintiff's husband permitted the second defendant to stay in the Schedule mentioned property only for a period of six months. After that, the second defendant did not vacate the premises. 3. In the meantime, the plaintiff's husband died on 26.05.2000. In view of that, the permission given by the plaintiff and her husband was terminated by the plaintiff. Finally, when the second defendant was asked to vacate the premises by the plaintiff, there was no response. Therefore, a legal notice was issued to the defendants on 14.02.2004. But the defendants 2 and 6 refused to received the notice. Subsequently, a rejoinder notice was also issued by the plaintiff to the defendant where the defendant flatly refused to vacate and handover the property. Hence, a suit was filed with a prayer for decree against the defendants/ appellants herein to evict them from the suit property and deliver vacant possession of the same. 4. A detailed written statement was filed by the defendants stating that the plaintiff's husband originally had an intention to purchase the suit property in the name of the second defendant, but in order to avoid un-necessary complications, purchased the same in the name of the plaintiff. 4. A detailed written statement was filed by the defendants stating that the plaintiff's husband originally had an intention to purchase the suit property in the name of the second defendant, but in order to avoid un-necessary complications, purchased the same in the name of the plaintiff. Even at the time of purchasing the property, the plaintiff was in France and after the execution of sale deed in the year 1991, the plaintiff's husband put the defendant in possession of the suit house and assured number of times in the presence of his friends namely Ragavan, Velayutham that he will execute a document namely will and settle the property in favour of the second defendant in due course. However, from 1991 onwards, this defendant/ appellant has been paying the taxes, electricity bill and water charges to the suit property till date. But the learned Trial Court wrongly mis-placing the evidence produced in support of the defendant's case, decreed the suit directing the defendant/ appellant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff granting only two months time. 5. As against that, first appeal was filed. The learned First Appellate Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. As a result, the defendant/ appellant has come to this court raising the following substantial questions of law: “a. Are the Courts below correct in decreeing the suit in the absence of the relief of declaration of title that too especially when the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiffs? b. Are the Courts below correct in decreeing the suit when the defendants had clearly established their uninterrupted peaceful possession of the suit properties for over a statutory period and thereby prescribed title by adverse possession? c. Are the Courts below correct in not deciding the vital issue of the defence of the defendants that they have been inducted into the suit property in lieu of their services rendered to the plaintiffs' family.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in order to find fault with the concurrent findings reached by both courts below, attempted to raise the substantial questions of law. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in order to find fault with the concurrent findings reached by both courts below, attempted to raise the substantial questions of law. A substantial question of law is a question of law which affects the rights of the parties to the suit, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or a settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents of the High Court, Privy Counsel, Federal Court or Supreme Court and involves a debatable legal issue. A question of law raised would not be considered as a Substantial Question of Law, if it stands already decided by a larger bench High Court concerned or by the Privy Counsel or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court. 7. The settled general rule for High Court mandates the High Court not to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. 8. With the above rule, if the case on hand is considered, both courts below have proceeded only on the available evidence both oral and documentary and decreed the suit. As a matter of fact, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The jurisdiction of the High Court is now confined to entertain only such appeals which involve substantial question of law specifically set out at the memorandum of appeal. When the settled legal position tells this Court that the High Court cannot substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence merely on ground that another view was possible, no interference can be called for with the impugned judgments. 9. Therefore, this Court finds no merits or substance to interfere with the concurrent findings or facts recorded by both the courts below. Accordingly, the second appeal falls to ground, hence it is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.