JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yarin Oza for learned advocate Mr. M.C. Barot waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. By preferring this application in Second Appeal No.202 of 2015, the appellant has requested to frame following additional substantial questions of law: E. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case whether the interpretation of terms and statements made in irrevocable power of attorney dated 29/3/1989, and the conclusions so arrived by the lower courts are illegal, misreading of POA, and perverse in its approach on the fact of the terms of the irrevocable POA, having regard to the true intent rights and obligation arising from various clauses of the POA including the right to deal with and register document in the office of the sub-registrar by admitting such execution? F. Whether in a case of irrevocable joint power of attorney given by two co-owners (mother and son), such irrevocable power of attorney gets terminated automatically on the death of mother (co-owner) and that too when the other co-owner (son) becomes absolute owner as per the revenue record? G. In absence of any legal termination of irrevocable general power of attorney coupled with interest, by the sole owner (son) as per the law, whether the POA in the facts and circumstances of the present case subsists? 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat for the applicant and learned senior counsel Mr. Yatin Oza for Mr. M.C. Barot learned advocate for the respondents. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that there is question of interpretation of terms and statements made in irrevocable general power of attorney executed by the deceased- Chanchalben and respondent no.1 namely Manubhai Motibhai Patel. That, the trial Court has not properly considered the terms and statements made in the irrevocable power of attorney in its judgment. That, in the power of attorney, the appellant was given all the powers of executing the documents, to remain present before the office of Sub-Registrar and in other government offices or specific government office to do any act which can be done by the executor of the power of attorney. That, the power of attorney was in nature of irrevocable and was never terminated by the executor. No notice was received by the present applicant terminating the power of attorney. That, the substantial question no. That, the power of attorney was in nature of irrevocable and was never terminated by the executor. No notice was received by the present applicant terminating the power of attorney. That, the substantial question no. F was also material question which requires to be framed by this Court; as irrevocable power of attorney was joint power of attorney given by two owners i.e. mother and son and such irrevocable power of attorney cannot be terminated automatically on the death of the mother (coowner) and that too when the co-owner (son) becomes absolute owner as per the revenue record. In support of his arguments, learned senior advocate has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 3 SCC 378 , 2019 LawSuit(SC) 1077. It was further submitted that sub-section 5 of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the present applicant to raise the plea at the time of hearing that the questions framed either do not arise in the case or the questions framed are not the substantial questions of law by assigning reasons. Learned advocate for the applicant has also placed reliance in case of Syeda Rahimunnisa Versus Malan Bi and Another, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 315 and argued that High Court cannot proceed to hear second appeal without formulating the substantial questions of law involved in the appeal and if it does so, it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on the Court. Hence, it was requested by the learned advocate for the applicant to allow this application and frame additional questions of law No. E, F, and G as stated in the application. 5. From the other side, learned senior advocate for the respondents has strongly objected the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that there is no question of any interpretation of the power of attorney. That, no specific powers of execution of sale deed of the suit property as well as execution of the documents before the Registrar was given to the present appellant by the executor of the power of attorney. That, this fact was admitted by the defendant/appellant himself in his cross examination that such powers were not given to him in the power of attorney vide Exh.80. That, this fact was admitted by the defendant/appellant himself in his cross examination that such powers were not given to him in the power of attorney vide Exh.80. That, before filing of the suit by the present plaintiff, the appellant has also preferred one Regular Civil Suit No.125 of 1996 before the Civil Court praying for permanent injunction restraining the respondents in the above said suit from cancelling the power of attorney. An application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also preferred by the plaintiff/appellant in the above said suit wherein the arguments were advanced that the notice was issued by one of the executor of power of attorney namely Manubhai Motibhai Patel and was received by the appellant, and thereafter, the suit filed by the present appellant was unconditionally withdrawn. The plaintiff was in knowledge of termination of power of attorney by the co-owners namely Manubhai Motibhai Patel. That, the plea of terminating the power of attorney would not ended automatically on the death of mother (co-owner) and that too when the other co-owner (son) becomes absolute owner as per the revenue record was never raised by the present appellant in his written statement or no evidence was produced on this aspect. That, the scope under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is very limited. Learned senior advocate for the respondent in support of his arguments has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.6567 of 2014 and argued that substantial questions of law can only be framed in case of (i) contrary to the mandatory provisions of the applicable law or (ii) contrary to the law as pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court or (iii) Based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence. It was further argued that the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined only with the second appeal which involve a substantial question of law. It was further argued that the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined only with the second appeal which involve a substantial question of law. Learned senior advocate for the respondents has placed reliance in case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Versus Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706 and argued that in power of attorney, no authorization was given by the present appellant to execute the sale deed i.e. (a) to present the document before the Registrar; and (b) to admit execution of the document before the Registrar. That, the issue of irrevocable power of attorney was decided by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court by assigning reasons in detail. It is also referred in the judgment of trial Court as well as of the Appellate Court while executing the submissions of terminating the power of attorney. Hence, it was submitted that there is no substantial questions of law require to be framed and requested to dismiss the application as it is being done only to delay the hearing of the second appeal. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that the second appeal was preferred by the present appellant and was admitted by this Court on 08.09.2016. Following substantial questions of law are framed by this Court while admitting the appeal: (A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the provisions of the POWER OF ATTORNEY ACT, read with the provisions of Contract Act relating to agency and the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY Act, whether the Courts below have erred at law and on facts in holding that poa in the present case could have been cancelled without serving legal notice as required at law? And whether courts below have erred in interpreting the poa in the present case, which was in the nature of irrevocable poa and coupled with interest and having parted with the possession of suit lands and receipt of sale consideration, whether the plaintiff was estopped from filing and seeking the prayers as prayed in suit? And whether courts below have erred in interpreting the poa in the present case, which was in the nature of irrevocable poa and coupled with interest and having parted with the possession of suit lands and receipt of sale consideration, whether the plaintiff was estopped from filing and seeking the prayers as prayed in suit? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the original plaintiff himself admitted that, he sent cancellation notice to poa holder at a wrong address, where he was not residing, at all and when there was no revocation of poa by public notice, whether the judgment and decree of courts below requires to be set aside ? (C) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below have erred at law and have committed material irregularity in not framing proper issues questions for determination, looking to pleadings and contentions of the defendants ? (D) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff requires to be allowed ? and whether the courts have committed material jurisdiction errors by not applying mind to relevant facts and got influenced by irrelevant facts? The question of framing the issue, as suggested by the present applicant No.(E), interpretation of terms and statement made in irrevocable power of attorney is covered in the question framed by this Court vide question No. A in the order dated 08.09.2016. So far as question No. F as prayed by the present appellant, it appears that in written statement, no such contention was raised by the present appellant in the statement nor any evidence was laid on this issue. However, the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have given detailed findings relying upon the provisions of Contract Act. So far as question No. F as prayed by the present appellant, it appears that in written statement, no such contention was raised by the present appellant in the statement nor any evidence was laid on this issue. However, the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have given detailed findings relying upon the provisions of Contract Act. So far as question No. G is concerned, in absence of any legal termination of irrevocable power of attorney coupled with interest, by the sole owner (son) as per the law, this Court would like to refer the deposition of the present appellant in the suit filed by him i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.125 of 1996 before the Civil Court, in an application submitted by the present appellant/plaintiff in the suit under Order 39 Rule 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that notice was received by the plaintiff from the respondent no.1 terminating the power of attorney. The applicant was having knowledge that he thereafter filed Regular Civil Suit No.125 of 1996 and declaration was sought for restraining the defendants from cancelling power of attorney executed by the deceased- Chanchalben and respondent no.1. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Lalitkumar Agrawal Versus Ratna Shok Muranjan and Another reported in (2019) 3 SCC 378 has held that interpretation of terms and conditions of documents constitutes substantial questions of law. If substantial questions of law do arise, as in the cited case, High Court is required to exercise power as per Sections 100(4) and 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here, in the instant case, interpretation of the terms and statements of the power of attorney (Exh.80) was made by the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court in detail. Reasonings were given by both the Courts below while interpreting the clause and terms of the power of attorney. That, the power of the High Court to frame additional issue under Section 100(4) and Section 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be denied in appropriate case if it is found involvement of substantial questions of law and required to be framed at the time of hearing the appeal. In other case, 2019 Lawsuit(SC) 1077 in para 12 and 13 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “12. In other case, 2019 Lawsuit(SC) 1077 in para 12 and 13 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “12. Section 100 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), in express terms, provides that the second appeal shall be heard only on the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court under Section 100 (4) of the Code. Therefore, the High Court has to confine its inquiry to the questions framed and not beyond it. 13. The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 of the Code also enables the respondent to raise a plea at the time of hearing that the questions framed wither do not arise in the case or the questions framed are not substantial questions of law. At the same time, the High Court has jurisdiction to frame any additional questions of law but this the High Court can do by assigning the reasons.” In the cited case, six substantial questions of law were framed by the High Court but, they were not found necessary and yet proceeded to allow the appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court, under the circumstances of the view that it was not legally sustainable and has to be set aside. In another case, relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant reported in (2016) 10 SCC 315 referring case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 , Hon’ble Apex Court is of the view that : “25(9). The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty case on the Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code.” In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the decision/issue would require to be confined only substantial questions of law so framed. Any findings without framing substantial questions of law in that regard would amount to decision/issue without jurisdiction. 8. Any findings without framing substantial questions of law in that regard would amount to decision/issue without jurisdiction. 8. Here, this Court has considered record of the trial Court and evidence produced on record, particularly power of attorney at Exh.80 and deposition of the present appellant admitting fact that there was no authorization given to him to present document before the Registrar and to admit execution of the document before the Registrar. The judgment relied upon by the present applicant, considering the facts and circumstances, issue involved in the appeal, this Court is not satisfy to frame any additional issue as suggested by the applicants. Accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed.