JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, Patan vide judgment and order dated 11.09.2015 confirming the judgment and decreed in Special Civil Suit No. 50/1992 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Radhanpur dated 03.07.2009 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal posing substantial questions of law as under:- "(A) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in confirming the judgment dated 03.07.2009 and decree dated 08.07.2009 passed by learned Principal Civil Judge, Radhanpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 50/1992? (B) Whether the Suit preferred by the original plaintiff was ex facie time barred and barred by law of limitation? (C) Whether the suit preferred by the original plaintiff was nad on the ground of non joinder of necessary and proper party and therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have rejected the suit on the said ground itself?" (D) Whether the present opponent No. 1 -- original plaintiff had proved the documents on record in accordance with law? (E) Whether the learned Trial Court committed a grave error of law in allowing the Civil Suit when the present opponent No. 1 -- original plaintiff had miserably failed to prove the exact boundaries and identification of the suit properties? (F) Whether the learned Trial Court committed a grave error of law in allowing the suit preferred by the original plaintiff in absence of the power of attorney on record on basis of which the original plaintiff entered into document below exh. 152? (G) Whether both the Courts below committed a grave error of law in stating that the ancestor of present appellant -- original defendant No. 2 was not the owner of the suit properties though the City Survey report reflected their name? (H) Whether both the Courts below committed a grave error of law by not appreciating the fact that the Original Plaintiff had not established her right, title and/or interest in the suit properties and therefore, the Original Plaintiff had no locus to file the Civil Suit?" 2. (H) Whether both the Courts below committed a grave error of law by not appreciating the fact that the Original Plaintiff had not established her right, title and/or interest in the suit properties and therefore, the Original Plaintiff had no locus to file the Civil Suit?" 2. The background of the facts as referred to by learned advocate, Shri Jay Thakkar for the appellant and learned advocate, Shri S.P. Majmudar for the respondents is with regard to the mortgage deed and subsequent transaction and though there are concurrent finding of facts, same is sought to be challenged by way of present Second Appeal posing substantial questions of law as recorded hereinabove. 3. Heard learned advocate, Shri Jay Thakkar for the appellant and learned advocate, Shri S.P. Majmudar for the respondents. 4. Learned advocate, Shri Thakkar referred to the background of the facts with much details which has to be stretched since 1980 and submitted that the property originally belonged to one Shirchand Nanchand, which was thereafter transferred to Ghanchi Hasan Mamad. He tried to submit that the Court below has failed to appreciate that same recital in the document may not be accepted at the face value. He, therefore, submitted that the documents, which have been relied upon, are not proved and, therefore, the conclusions which are sought to be based on such documents, is erroneous. He also referred to the observations made in the judgment of both the Courts below, particularly, first Appellate Court and submitted that the document at Exh. 221 has been referred to and submitted that the respondents, who are claiming right, title, interest on the basis of the sale deed executed by the heirs of the original owner, Shri Shirchand Nanchand through power of attorney, have failed to establish any such right, title, interest. Learned advocate, Shri Jay Thakkar repeatedly insisted that the power of attorney is not produced as well as the documents which have been relied upon, cannot be said to have been proved or established. He submitted that the persons, who have been involved in different mortgage deed, are not joined as party and, therefore, it would not have been accepted. He, therefore, submitted that the plaintiffs have no right, title and suit could not have been decreed. He submitted that the persons, who have been involved in different mortgage deed, are not joined as party and, therefore, it would not have been accepted. He, therefore, submitted that the plaintiffs have no right, title and suit could not have been decreed. In support of his contentions, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 2516/2008 dated 29.06.2016 and emphasized the observations made in Paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 16 and tried to submit referring to the observation made in Paragraph No. 15 that the Court is required to interpreted the nature of document and legal issues based on such documents and the High Court is oblige to consider the correctness of the findings and, therefore, the present Appeal may be entertained. 5. Learned advocate, Shri Majmudar referred to the papers and submitted that admittedly, the appellant is the sub-mortgager and is not the owner. Learned advocate, Shri Majmudar submitted that the respondents have purchased the property in question from the heirs of the original owner by registered sale deed, which has not been challenged or disputed. Therefore, learned advocate, Shri Majmudar submitted that as there is valid registered sale deed, it cannot be doubted merely because the submissions are made that it was executed through power of attorney. He submitted that the original owner or the heirs have not challenged nor anyone has raised any doubt, therefore, the appellant will not have any right to raise any issue. He submitted that in any event, if there was any dispute, it could have been raised at appropriate level but such contentions cannot be raised at the stage of Second Appeal. 6. Learned advocate, Shri Majmudar also submitted that another contention is that the mortgager or the persons having interest in subsequent transaction, are not joined. He, however, submitted that same issue has been considered by the first Appellate Court in Paragraph No. 34, which he pointedly referred to. He submitted relying upon the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat reported in AIR 1971 GUJARAT 239, which has also been quoted and submitted that in the suit filed by the mortgager for redemption of the suit property, if the mortgager is prepared to pay entire amount, decree could be passed. He submitted relying upon the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat reported in AIR 1971 GUJARAT 239, which has also been quoted and submitted that in the suit filed by the mortgager for redemption of the suit property, if the mortgager is prepared to pay entire amount, decree could be passed. He, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, entire amount is ordered to be deposited and, therefore, no grievance could be made by the appellant. Learned advocate, Shri Majmudar submitted that in fact, as could be seen from the order, even the claim made for the development charges or the improvement, is also accepted and his client is ordered to pay the said amount along with interest, the appellant cannot have any grievance. 7. However, learned advocate, Shri Majmudar submitted that there is deliberate attempt for making claim in the guise of such contention that the appellant claims right in the property by adverse possession, meaning thereby, even though there is right of redemption and respondents, who stepped in the shoes of the heirs of the original owner, would be entitled to claim redemption as per the provision of the Transfer of Property Act, which has been discussed, the claim is sought to be made qua property on adverse possession so that redemption is denied. He, therefore, submitted that though such issue is sought to be made, same cannot be believed as the claim which is made for adverse possession, is misconceived. He referred to the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in case of Kanabi Ladha Ukeda (supra) and submitted that it has been clearly observed, "............. Having admittedly entered into possession of the lands in question as mortgagee it is not open to the defendant to raise the plea of ownership by adverse possession. His admission that he entered into possession as mortgagee though the mortgage transaction is not evidenced by a registered document means that he entered into possession of the suit lands with the consent and permission of the plaintiffs. Therefore having entered into possession of the lands in question with the consent and permission of the plaintiffs, it is not open to him to plead acquisition of ownership by adverse possession. Therefore the question of prescribing title to the suit property as owner by adverse possession does not arise in this case." 8. Therefore having entered into possession of the lands in question with the consent and permission of the plaintiffs, it is not open to him to plead acquisition of ownership by adverse possession. Therefore the question of prescribing title to the suit property as owner by adverse possession does not arise in this case." 8. Therefore, learned advocate, Shri Majmudar submitted that the appellant cannot be made any claim on the title to the property by adverse possession. He, therefore, submitted that apart from the issue or substantial question of law, which are sought to be raised referring to the documents and interpretation of document, it cannot be said to be question of law, particularly, when no such issues have been raised before the trial court or the first appellate court and, therefore, such contentions, which are sought to be added in the Second Appeal, are misconceived. 9. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present Second Appeal deserves consideration. 10. As could be seen from the background of the facts and rival submissions, issue is with regard to the mortgage and redemption of mortgage stretching it back to 1980 when the original owner had mortgaged. The respondents have admittedly purchased the property by registered sale deed from the heirs of the original owner. Therefore, dispute of title to the property is not raised and it is sought to be argued for the first time in Second Appeal. Further if there was any doubt about any documents having been executed, it could have been challenged, which has not been challenged and the contention that it was executed through Power of Attorney, is also misconceived as it is also permissive way of entering into transaction through power of attorney. The appellant having not raised any such dispute at the stage, which could have been, it is too late now in the light of the day to raise any such issue. 11. It is also required to be stated that the respondents, who is said to have purchased the property from the heirs of the original owner by registered sale deed will step in the shoes of the heirs of the original owner and would be entitled to the claim for redemption having stepped in the shoes of the original owner. 11. It is also required to be stated that the respondents, who is said to have purchased the property from the heirs of the original owner by registered sale deed will step in the shoes of the heirs of the original owner and would be entitled to the claim for redemption having stepped in the shoes of the original owner. The first Appellate Court and the Trial Court have considered this aspect with reference to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The First Appellate Court has referred to Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provide for the persons who may sue for redemption. Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for subrogation. The provision of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that any person or right conferred on a person acquiring the same right is said to have subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee. Therefore, the contentions which are sought to be raised that the respondent has no right, title interest is misconceived. 12. Another facet of submissions which have been made with much emphasis that recital in the documents are not proved and same has been admitted or believed, is also misconceived. When the documents were exhibited at the trial, objections could have been taken or it could have been questioned at the relevant time. Moreover, both the Courts below having considered all these aspects have accepted that the respondents having stepped in the shoes of the original owner after they purchased the property from the heirs of the original owner, would step in the shoes of the original owner and, therefore, will have right to redeem. 13. Another facet of submission that the documents are not proved and they are not considered and, therefore, the issue arising from the interpretation of same documents could be a substantial question of law, is also misconceived which is sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal. There is no quarrel with the preposition that the interpretation of the document or the issue arising out of the interpretation may form substantial question of law. However, such contentions cannot be raised in abstract without any reference to the issue involved and background of the facts. There is no quarrel with the preposition that the interpretation of the document or the issue arising out of the interpretation may form substantial question of law. However, such contentions cannot be raised in abstract without any reference to the issue involved and background of the facts. In the facts of the case, merely by suggesting that the Court has accepted recital in the document without proving, is thoroughly misconceived particularly when the appellant having failed to raise any question when the documents are exhibited. Therefore it is a matter of interpretation and when the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent executed by the heirs of the or original owner is admitted and is relied upon, it cannot be said that there is any error much less any perversity. Therefore, such question of law which are sought to be posed cannot have any relevance for the purpose of present Appeal. 14. One more aspect which has been referred to is with regard to the adverse possession. Admittedly the person, who claims adverse possession has to claim possession by adversity and any possession with permission would not be any adverse. Therefore as rightly submitted, when the appellant was having possession with permission, it cannot be claimed as adverse possession and it is not open to claim any right, title interest by adverse possession in view of the provisions of law and same has been also interpreted by this High Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1971 GUJARAT 239, which has been quoted. 15. Another submission that there are different transactions and the persons, who are party to such transactions, have not been joined as party, meaning thereby, different mortgages or sale deed are there but they have not been joined as party is without any merit in light of the judgment referred to and relied upon by learned advocate, Shri Majmudar, which has already been quoted in Para No. 34 of the judgment of the first Appellate Court. 16. Therefore the present Second Appeal, which is challenging the concurrent findings of facts, cannot be entertained in view of the scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. 16. Therefore the present Second Appeal, which is challenging the concurrent findings of facts, cannot be entertained in view of the scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down broad guidelines with regard to the scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code after the amendment in 1976 expressing a word of caution that normally the concurrent findings of facts may not be disturbed unless there is any substantial question of law, which could be said to have been issued. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kaki & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 , wherein, it has clearly observed that:- "The legislative intention is very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become 'third trial on facts' or 'one more dice in the gamble'." 17. Therefore having regard to the aforesaid discussions and background of the facts, the present Second Appeal cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. 18. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal Dismissed