ORDER : G.R. Udhwani, J. 1. Judgment and decree dated 15.12.2017 rendered by District Court, Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2006 confirming the dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No. 86 of 2003 by judgment and decree dated 31.7.2006 by learned Civil Judge, Gandevi, District: Navsari is sought to be assailed in this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'). 2. The dispute between the parties is in relation to right of way, not under the Easement Act, but presumably under Specific Relief Act. The dispute emerged out of 3 sale-deeds executed conveying the titles to the defendants respectively on 16.10.1990, 19.11.1992 and 16.4.1993. By the last mentioned sale-deed, the portion of the land comprised in Survey No. 2188 came to be conveyed by plaintiff no. 4 to plaintiff nos. 1, and 3 and by other 2 sale-deeds, portion of land bearing Survey No. 2109 came to be conveyed to the defendants herein. 3. It appears that sale-deed dated 19.11.1992 required the purchaser to demolish certain construction so as to open the access to other portion of the land comprised in said 2 Survey Numbers. Accordingly, the said purchaser complied. That is the 'way' which gave rise to the dispute in Regular Civil Suit No. 86 of 2003 above stated. 4. In the trial Court, reliance came to be placed on the said 3 sale-deeds produced at Exhs-67, 38 and 39. On appreciation of said documents along with oral evidence, the factual findings was recorded that the right to access was not exclusively available to the plaintiffs but was shared by the defendants, in common. 5. According to learned advocate for the appellant, the substantial question of law arises in the appeal because the lower Appellate Court did not consider the document Exh-67. Learned advocate would urge the existence of substantial question of law also on the ground that the appreciation of the documents by the Court was not properly done. 6. Opposing the appeal, learned advocate for the opponent drew attention of this Court to the factual findings rendered by the trial Court, after consideration of the material on record. He would submit that findings of facts were based upon the material and evidence; without any perversity and illegality therein. 6. Opposing the appeal, learned advocate for the opponent drew attention of this Court to the factual findings rendered by the trial Court, after consideration of the material on record. He would submit that findings of facts were based upon the material and evidence; without any perversity and illegality therein. That the Appellate Court concurred with the findings and in absence of perversity in the findings of the Appellate Court, it was contended that no substantial question emerges in the Second Appeal. Learned advocate placed reliance upon (1) Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v/s. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [Civil Appeal No. 2329 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6527 of 1998)] dated 16.4.1999 and (2) Laxmidevamma and Ors v/s. Ranganath and Ors (Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2015) dated 20.1.2015. 7. On consideration of the rival contentions, it is required to be ascertained whether the appeal poses any substantial question of law for its admission. The Apex Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v/s. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [Civil Appeal No. 2329 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6527 of 1998)] decided on 16.4.1999, while relying upon Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1314, explained the substantial question of law. The quotation in this regard in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta (supra) reads thus: "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law." 8. Thus, it is evidently made clear as to what could be the substantial question of law and what could not be. Thus, it is evidently made clear as to what could be the substantial question of law and what could not be. Similarly in Laxmidevamma and Ors v/s. Ranganath and Ors (Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2015) decided on 20.1.2015, the Apex Court pointed out the scope of jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC thus: "Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in 'A' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledge right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained." 9. In the context of above settled legal position, the rival submissions urged herein are required to be answered. 10. Proceeding on the assumption that the Appellate Court has ignored the document Exh-67 while concurring with the factual findings rendered by the trial Court; in the opinion of this Court in absence of any substantial effect of such ignorance, on the conclusion drawn by the Appellate Court on the basis of other acceptable and unchallenged evidence, no substantial question of law would arise. In other words, if concurrence was correctly and legally recorded by appellate even after overlooking one of the documents, no substantial question of law would arise. Such a position is made clear in case-law above referred. 11. No substantial question of law would be involved on the mere ground that appreciation of the evidence was short of the expectation by a party; if therefore the appreciation is sustainable. Therefore, the argument to the contrary cannot be countenanced. 12. Such a position is made clear in case-law above referred. 11. No substantial question of law would be involved on the mere ground that appreciation of the evidence was short of the expectation by a party; if therefore the appreciation is sustainable. Therefore, the argument to the contrary cannot be countenanced. 12. Learned advocate submitted that one of the defendants in his cross-examination admitted that in the sale-deed executed in his favour, right to way was not referred to. The factual findings after reading such an evidence was concurrently rendered by the two Courts below, and in view of the settled position emerging from the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the opponent, this Court would not enter into re-appreciation of evidence in an Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. The contention therefore does not merit acceptance. 13. Under the above circumstances, this Court does not find any involvement of any substantial question of law for admission of appeal. The Appeal must fail and is dismissed. 14. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, no order is required to be passed in Civil Application.