JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. Heard Sri Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B. Malik and Sri A. Malik, learned counsel for the caveator-respondents and perused the material available on record. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The plaintiffs Smt. Beti Bai and Smt. Bhawani Bai instituted Original Suit No.41 of 2006 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mahoba against Prem Nath @ Ramdin and others, for partition of the disputed property situate at Mohalla Fatehpur Bazariya, Tehsil and District Mahoba, described at the foot of the plaint whereby the plaintiffs claimed half portion in the ancestral property. The suit was contested by the defendant Prem Nath @ Ramdin, who happens to be real uncle of the plaintiffs. Learned trial court framed in all four issues for determination of the suit. Issue No.1 is substantial which was framed as under: "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to one half share of the disputed property, if yes, its effect?" Rest issues are formal in nature. The plaintiffs got examined PW-1 Smt. Beti Bai, PW-2 Summera, PW-3 Mohan Lal and PW-4 Guman Bihari, besides submitting certain documents in proof of their claim. The defendants also got examined DW-1 Bablu @ Bhagwati Prasad and DW-2 Girdhari Lal. The defendants also filed their papers before the trial court. Learned trial court considered the substantial issue no.1 and after appreciating the evidence and material on record allowed the claim of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit for partition whereagainst the defendant preferred First Civil Appeal No.52 of 2014 Bablu @ Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Smt. Beti Bai and others before the District Judge, Mahoba who in turn also re-appreciated evidence in entirety and particularly substantial issue no.1 and concurred with the findings of the trial court dismissing the First Civil Appeal No.52 of 2014 vide its judgment and decree dated 20.01.2015 and 31.01.2015, respectively. Hence the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have not examined and scrutinized the evidence properly and the view taken by the courts below is not correct. Hence the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have not examined and scrutinized the evidence properly and the view taken by the courts below is not correct. As regards submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that evidence has not been examined and scrutinized properly, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out as to which part of the evidence has been misread and the relevant evidence has been omitted or inadmissible has been taken into account. Learned counsel for the appellant stuck to the same arguments that learned courts below did not examine the evidence properly. Suffice to say that argument alone cannot be ground to act upon it in the absence of any relevant supporting material. In so far as the plea, that the courts below did not take correct view of the evidence, it can be conveniently observed that this by itself would not give rise to any question of law then point of substantial question of law becomes a remote possibility. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises. It appears that learned counsel for the appellant wants this Court to assume nomenclature of the first appellate court. This Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and fact in regard to Issue No.1 which has been concluded by concurrent finding of the courts below, which finding is based on relevant and admissible evidence. It would not be out of reference to observe that the scope of exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is limited only to determination of the substantial question of law. To be a substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and answer to the same will have a material bearing as to the rights of the parties before the Court. This very aspect of substantial question of law has been elaborated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govindaraja Vs. Mariamman, AIR 2005 SC 1008 . In the present case, both the courts below while recording concurrent finding on Issue No.1 have taken into consideration all the points raised and answered between the parties pros and cons, therefore, it is incumbent upon the appellant to come out with the particular piece of evidence which has been left untouched by the courts below. In the present case, both the courts below while recording concurrent finding on Issue No.1 have taken into consideration all the points raised and answered between the parties pros and cons, therefore, it is incumbent upon the appellant to come out with the particular piece of evidence which has been left untouched by the courts below. The scope of substantial question of law has been further elaborated in the case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari 2001 (3) SCC 179 and Thiagarajan and others Vs. Sri Venugopalswamay B. Koll and others AIR 2004 SC 1913 . The aforesaid view is supported recently by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (2011) 1 SCC 763, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another (2012) 8 SCC 148 . The aforesaid decisions have been followed by this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Stanti Devi and others 2013, (4) ALJ 383. In the case in hand, both the courts below have taken comprehensive view of the material/evidence available on record and have recorded concurrent finding of the fact as observed above. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any manifest error or illegality in the impugned judgments of the courts below so as to give rise to any substantial question of law for adjudication of this appeal. In absence of any substantial question of law, the instant second appeal deserves to be dismissed at this stage under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. Dismissed, accordingly. ——————