JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. – This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.3.2010 passed by Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (EC Act), Varanasi, in Civil Appeal No. 578 of 1993 Vishwakarma Sahba, Varanasi & others v. Lohar Sangh & others. 2. In original Suit No. 291 of 1975 (Vishwakarma Sahba & others v. Lohar Sangh & others) the plaintiffs claim that to plaintiff no.-1 Vishwakarma Sabha is exclusive owner and landlord of the disputed properties and prayed for relief mentioned as under: "(a) That by decree it to be declared that the plaintiff no. 1 representing Lohar Community of Varanasi is the sole owner of the properties detailed below and is in possession thereof and alone entitled to relies rent from the tenants of those properties including the defendants no. 12 to 30 and the defendant no. 1 or any of the defendants is not the owner thereof nor representative of Lohar Community, Varanasi. (b) That a decree for rent against the defendants no. 12 for Rs. 1080/-, no. 13 for Rs. 900/-, no. 14 for Rs. 360/-, no. 15 for Rs. 576/-, no. 16 for Rs.216/-, no. 17 for Rs. 144/-, no. 18 for Rs. 288/-, no. 19 for Rs. 360/-, no. 20 for Rs. 108/-, no. 21 for Rs. 108/-, no. 22 for Rs. 144, no. 23 for Rs. 144, no. 24 for Rs. 144/-, no. 25 for Rs. 144/-, no. 26 for Rs. 144, no. 27 for Rs. 144/- and no. 28 for Rs. 144/- be passed in favour of plaintiffs. (c) The cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendants." 3. In the original suit some defendants filed written-statement. After framing of issues and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the original suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 3.3.1993 of IVth Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi. It is pertinent to mention that Gopal Prasad (appellant of present second appeal) was not party in Original Suit No. 291 of 1975. 4. Against the judgment dated 3.3.1993 the trial court, Civil Appeal No. 578 of 1993 (Vishkarma Sabha & others v. Lohar Sangh & others) was preferred by plaintiffs of the original suit. It is pertinent to mention that Gopal Prasad (appellant of present second appeal) was not party in Original Suit No. 291 of 1975. 4. Against the judgment dated 3.3.1993 the trial court, Civil Appeal No. 578 of 1993 (Vishkarma Sabha & others v. Lohar Sangh & others) was preferred by plaintiffs of the original suit. In this appeal lower appellate court had appreciated facts of the case and framed two points of determination; first was as to whether plaintiff Vishwakarma Sabha is owner in possession of disputed property of House No. 13/62-63 Mohalla Chaukaghat, Varanasi, and second point of determination was as to whether plaintiff Vishwakarna Sabha or whether the defendant no. 1- Lohar Sangh is entitled to receive rent from the tenants of disputed property. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, including the present appellant Gopal Prasad (who was implead respondent directly in the first appeal), the lower appellate court had allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 3.3.1993 of trial court and decreed the suit of plaintiffs for the relief claimed in plaint with declaration that plaintiff no.-1 Vishwakarma Sahba is representing the Lohar Community of Varanasi and is entitled to receive rent from tenants of disputed property. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 30.3.2010 of first appellate court, present Second Appeal has been preferred by respondent no.-40 of the first appeal, namely Gopal Prasad. 6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties on point of admission of second appeal and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that during first appeal before lower appellate court, three new issues were framed by lower appellate court, but no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the parties to adduce evidences on these issues, and these were decided in first appellate court. Such procedure adopted by lower appellate court had deprived the right of hearing to appellant; therefore the impugned judgment is erroneous. So appeal should be admitted for being allowed. He also contended that disputed property belongs to Lohar community and appellant is Lohar, so he has right to prefer the appeal. 8. Counsel for the respondent contended that appellant was not party in the original suit and no cause of action arose to him. There is no pleading of appellant before the court. He also contended that disputed property belongs to Lohar community and appellant is Lohar, so he has right to prefer the appeal. 8. Counsel for the respondent contended that appellant was not party in the original suit and no cause of action arose to him. There is no pleading of appellant before the court. Being an outsider and in absence of any decree against him, the appellant has no right to prefer the appeal and has no legal right of hearing. Therefore, this appeal should not be admitted. 9. It is admitted fact that present appellant Gopal Prasad was not party to the proceedings in trial court, and had not filed any pleadings before the court regarding facts of the case. In present matter disputed relates to property of Lohar community. In absence of any pleading or evidence and in absence of any affidavit of appellant along with memorandum of present second appeal, this contention of counsel for the respondent is found not unacceptable that there is no reason to believe that appellant is a member of Lohar Community and may have interest in disputed property. 10. So far the contention of appellant's side regarding not affording opportunity of hearing on three issues framed during pendency of first appeal is concerned, a perusal of records reveals that the three said issues are (1) as to whether suit is barred by provision of Order I Rule 8 CPC, (2) whether the plaintiff had locus standi to institute the suit and (3) whether the suit of plaintiffs is maintainable. These were not point of facts but were points of law that could be decided on the basis of arguments and legal provision. The lower appellate court had afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties on the three legal issues framed by it, and then framed points of determination; and thereafter passed impugned judgment. Therefore, this contention is unacceptable that appellant was not afforded opportunity of hearing on those three legal issues. Without considering into merit of the matter of the finding, three legal issues, it is found that there was no requirement of any evidence for disposal of those three legal issues which could be disposed of on basis of opportunity of hearing through oral argument, as has been done by the lower appellate court in present matter. Therefore, contention of not affording opportunity of hearing on those issues is unacceptable. 11. Therefore, contention of not affording opportunity of hearing on those issues is unacceptable. 11. It is admitted fact that dispute relating to property situated in House No. J-13/62-63, mohalla Chaukaghat, Varanasi, which is property of Lohar community, and in different portions of which several tenants (defendant nos. 12 to 30 of original suit) are in occupation. The dispute in original suit was as to whether plaintiff no.-1 Vishwakarma Sabha or defendant no.-1 Lohar Sangh is owner in possession of said property and is entitled to receive rent from its tenants. This was not the question of law but was question of fact that could be decided on basis of adduced evidences. The evidence were adduced by the concerned parties. In first appeal, after being impleaded as respondent no.-40, the appellant had never requested for adducing any evidence. He consented the evidences adduced by the parties. Thereafter the first appellate court had afforded opportunity of hearing and decided the appeal with finding of fact given in favour of plaintiff-appellant and against defendant and all the respondents, including newly added respondents. The first appellate court had meticulously appreciated the factual evidences and gave finding that plaintiff no.-1 Vishwakarma Sabha has been receiving rent from the tenants of disputed property and within its right and in occupation of disputed property, they are entitled for the relief claimed. The finding of lower appellate court is based on appreciation of evidences. By the judgment it has also explained the reasons as to why the judgment of trial court was erroneous, and thereafter allowed the appeal. In fact, the real dispute between the parties regarding disputed property and right of recovery of rent relates to factual questions, which was decided by lower courts on basis of evidences. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited ' 2003 (9) SCC 606 : 2003 (1) ARC 615, Banarasi & others v. Ram Phal' in which it was held that appellate court cannot grant relief in favor of respondents in exercise of power under Order 41, Rule 33 & 4 CPC. This ruling is not applicable in this matter as in first appeal the plaintiff was not the respondents, and relief was granted to him as appellant who had challenged the impugned judgment of the trial court. 13. This ruling is not applicable in this matter as in first appeal the plaintiff was not the respondents, and relief was granted to him as appellant who had challenged the impugned judgment of the trial court. 13. On examination of reasoning recorded by first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that judgment in civil appeal as above is well reasoned and is based on proper appreciation of evidences on record. No infirmity or perversity is found in finding recorded by the first appellate court to warrant interference in it through this appeal. In this matter dispute to be determined related to said facts that could have been decided on basis of evidences, as was done. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, is involved in this matter. None of contentions of counsel for the appellant can be sustained. 14. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.