ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 12.06.2015 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Regular Second Appeal No. 333 of 2004 and Execution Second Appeal No.4 of 2002. 4. Even on a fair reading of the judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court proceeded to decide the Second Appeal without formulating any substantial question of law, which it ought to have done in view of the mandate of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the consistent view taken by this Court including in 2012 (4) SCC 344 - Hardeep Kaur vs. Malkiat Kaur. For this singular reason, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment. 5. We place on record the submission made by the counsel for the respondents that the High Court has interfered with the decision of the lower Courts in the Second Appeal because it was of the view that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, were per se perverse. In our view, even if the High Court wanted to so hold, it was obligatory, to first formulate the appropriate substantial question of law and then deal with the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. We refrain from observing anything more, except to make it amply clear that all contentions available to both the parties are left open to be decided on their own merits, in accordance with law. 6. We also place on record the effort put in by the appellant(s) to effect service on respondent No.4, as noted in the report of the Principal Civil Court, Trivandrum, Kerala dated 23.01.2017. 7. The Civil Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. 8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.