JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. This is plaintiff's second appeal under section 100,C.P.C. The plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed 22.9.2000. The trial court has dismissed the suit and appeal has also been dismissed. Case of the plaintiff -appellant was that sole defendant is real sister of her mother. Plaintiff's mother was critically ill and on 22.9.2000 she executed a registered sale deed in favour of her real sister in respect of .246 hectare land (about one bigha) for consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. It was further averred in the plaint that at the time of execution of sale deed, plaintiff's mother was not in proper frame of mind and taking advantage of closeness of the relationship, the defendant fraudulently got the sale deed executed in her favour without any consideration. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement wherein her stand was that her sister-plaintiff's mother, has got the property from her father and she wanted to sell the property to clear her debt, therefore, the defendant requested the plaintiff to sell the property to her, for which she agreed and executed registered sale deed and delivered possession of the property to the defendant. The trial court recorded a finding that sale deed was executed by the plaintiff's mother without any pressure and coercion and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the order of trial court, the plaintiff-appellant preferred regular first appeal which has also been dismissed by the appellate court affirming the findings of trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that said sale was without any consideration. He has taken the Court to the evidence of some witnesses to demonstrate that there was inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses regarding sale consideration, as one of the witnesses has deposed that payment was made before Moharrir whereas the defendant in her statement stated that she did not make any payment and her husband has paid the money. According to the learned counsel, statements of the defendant and the witnesses are self contradictory regarding payment of sale consideration. Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao, 1999 AIR (SC) 1441 and a judgment of this Court in Balwant Singh Vs. Raj Singh and others, 2003(94) RD 704 . I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao, 1999 AIR (SC) 1441 and a judgment of this Court in Balwant Singh Vs. Raj Singh and others, 2003(94) RD 704 . I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that her mother was not well when sale deed was got executed by playing fraud by the defendant. It is noteworthy that defendant is none other but real sister of the plaintiff's mother (Mausi). As regards the main submission of the learned counsel that no sale consideration was paid for the said sale, learned counsel admits that no such issue was framed by the trial court. The evidence on which he has placed reliance, has been discarded by both the courts below by recording a finding of fact that sale consideration was paid. In so far as inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses pointed out by the learned counsel are concerned, I have carefully gone through the statements and the findings recorded by the courts below and find that these findings are finding of fact and does not warrant any interference under section 100, C.P.C. Appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse. Under section 100, C.P.C. the Court has very limited jurisdiction as only on substantial question of law, the appeal can be entertained. The So called inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel, cannot be said to be perverse. It is admitted case that sale deed in question was a registered document and prior to execution of the sale deed about two months back, mother of the plaintiff has also executed a registered will deed in favour of the plaintiff. This fact has also been noticed by the courts below which goes to show that her mother was in proper frame of mind and well aware of the fact that two documents have been got registered by her within a short span of time. From the findings of the courts below it is also clear plaintiff has failed to prove that her mother was critically ill and was not in a position to take decision in regard to sale of the property. As regards the judgment in Vidhyadhar's case (supra), the facts and law are clearly distinguishable. From the findings of the courts below it is also clear plaintiff has failed to prove that her mother was critically ill and was not in a position to take decision in regard to sale of the property. As regards the judgment in Vidhyadhar's case (supra), the facts and law are clearly distinguishable. In that case, the dispute was in respect of redemption of the mortgage by conditional sale and in terms of section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, in respect of registered sale deed, right of vendor to charge on said property for amount sale price and for interest thereon, was the issue involved in the said case, hence the said case is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Balwant Singh's case (supra), the dispute was in respect of nature of mutation proceedings and the Court in the said case held that mutation proceedings is summary proceeding and does not create any right in the land. In that case sale deed was executed by old man of 75 years of age and the court in that case recorded finding that sale deed was without consideration and had been obtained by fraud. Such is not the position in the case in hand and hence this decision is of no to the appellant. The Supreme Court in long line of decisions has settled as to what is substantial question of law. Any question of law which affects the final decision of the case is substantial question of law. A question which has been settled by the Supreme Court or High Court will not be a substantial question of law. The Court cannot appreciate evidence under section 100,C.P.C. unless issue as raised has not been decided by the Supreme Court or High Court. The issues raised in the present appeal are not substantial question of law. In this connection, relevant part of the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal, ( AIR 2008 SC 2594 ), where it has considered as to what is a substantial question of law, is quoted hereinunder : "9.1) Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. In this connection, relevant part of the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal, ( AIR 2008 SC 2594 ), where it has considered as to what is a substantial question of law, is quoted hereinunder : "9.1) Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. The word 'substantial' prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of section 100 CPC, any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing in the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question of law, by this Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled by this court (or by the concerned High Court so far as the State is concerned), arises for consideration in the case. But this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective. Where there is a clear enunciation of law and the lower court has followed or rightly applied such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance. On the other hand, if there is a clear enunciation of law by this Court (or by the concerned High Court), but the lower court had ignored or misinterpreted or misapplied the same, and correct application of the law as declared or enunciated by this Court (or the concerned High Court) would have led to a different decision, the appeal would involve a substantial question of law as between the parties. Even where there is an enunciation of law by this court (or the concerned High Court) and the same has been followed by the lower court, if the appellant is able to persuade the High Court that the enunciated legal position needs reconsideration, alteration, modification or clarification or that there is a need to resolve an apparent conflict between two view points, it can be said that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. There cannot, therefore, be a strait-jacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case..." In the present case, both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact with regard to validity of the sale deed, hence I find that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.