JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal of defendant Nos.1 and 2 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2016 in Regular Appeal No.59/2013 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2013 in O.S.No.14/2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Turuvekere. 3. The Trial Court by the said judgment and decree partly decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff granting her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and dismissed her claim for additional share on the basis of the Will allegedly executed by her father Bommaiah. 4. Appellants were the defendants and respondent was plaintiff before the trial court. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred to henceforth as per their ranks before the trial court. 5. The subject matter of the suit were the lands in Sy.No.173/5 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, Sy.No.3/6 measuring 1 acre 56 guntas and Sy.No.16 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas and house property bearing No.4 situated within the limits of Dunda village, Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere taluk. 6. Plaintiff is the daughter and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of one Bommaiah. Bommaiah died on 6.2.2011. According to the case of both the parties, the suit schedule properties were the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff, defendants and Bommaiah. 7. Plaintiff claimed that her father Bommaiah executed registered Will dated 29.1.2011 in her favour bequeathing the land in Sy.No.3/6 and House list No.4. She claimed that by virtue of such Will, she is entitled to those properties and in addition to that, she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the other suit schedule properties. She further claimed that as per the Will the share of Bommaiah shall be allotted to her. 8. Defendants contested the suit denying the Will set up by the plaintiff. They contended that during the lifetime of Bommaiah, there was a partition in the joint family properties between the defendants and their father Bommaiah. Therefore, there is already a partition in the family. They further contended that the share of the plaintiff was given to her by way of her marriage expenses. 9. On the basis of such pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: 1. Therefore, there is already a partition in the family. They further contended that the share of the plaintiff was given to her by way of her marriage expenses. 9. On the basis of such pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are their ancestral and Hindu Joint family properties of herself and defendants and same are not partitioned in between them till today? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that as pleaded in plaint para No.4, she is entitle to additional share in suit property on the strength of the registered Will dated 29.01.2011 executed by her father Bommaiah in her favour? 3. Whether the defendants prove that in the life time of father of plaintiff and defendants, their father Bommaiah and themselves have got partitioned the suit schedule properties through Partition deed dated 27.11.2005, which is got impounded in O.S.108/2006. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is deserved to be dismissed? 4. Whether the defendants prove that Rs.5,00,000/is spent for the marriage of plaintiff as contended in page No.3 of their written statement, in lieu of her 1/3rd share. Hence, she is not entitle to the 1/3rd share of her in suit schedule properties? 5. Whether the defendants prove that plaintiff has got created Will on 29.1.2011, in her favour by playing fraud on Bommaiah, though he was not in a sound position of mind to execute the same about suit properties? 6. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitle for her 1/3rd share in all suit schedule properties and additional share on the basis of Will dated 29.01.2011 as prayed for? 7. What order or decree? 10. Parties adduced evidence. On behalf of plaintiff, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D1 to D12 were marked. 11. On hearing the parties, the trial court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the Will set up by her and therefore, rejected her claim under the Will. However, the trial court awarded 1/3rd share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties holding that the defendants have failed to prove partition dated 27.11.2005 set up by them and that they have spent `5,00,000/for the marriage of plaintiff in lieu of her share. 12. However, the trial court awarded 1/3rd share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties holding that the defendants have failed to prove partition dated 27.11.2005 set up by them and that they have spent `5,00,000/for the marriage of plaintiff in lieu of her share. 12. The defendants challenged the said judgment and decree before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur in R.A.No.59/2016. The first appellate court concurring with the reasonings and findings of the trial court dismissed the appeal. 13. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendants are before this Court in this appeal. 14. This being a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, can be admitted for hearing, only if the matter involves substantial question of law for consideration. 15. What is ‘substantial question of law’ is explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs. AIR 2001 SC 965 wherein it is held that second appeal cannot be entertained unless there is a substantial question of law. It was further held that on the question of fact, the first appellate court is the last court unless some perversity is shown in the judgments of the courts below. It was further held that all questions of law are not substantial questions of law. To be ‘substantial’ a question of law that must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent. 16. Sri.S.B.Halli, learned Counsel for the defendants submits that the courts below rejected the defendants’ claim of prior partition only on the ground that the partition deed is not produced. He submits that he has filed I.A.No.1/2018 in this appeal to produce the said document as additional evidence. 17. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.Balaji Singh Vs. Diwakar Cole and others AIR 2017 SC 2402 he submits that the additional evidence produced by the defendants requires to be received and the matter has to be remanded. According to him, the rejection of defendants’ defence on the ground of nonproduction of partition deed is substantial question of law. 18. Per contra, Sri.B.G.Vijayakumaraswamy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the only defence set up by the defendants was a prior partition dated 27.11.2005 and all along they did not adduce any evidence in proof of the same. According to him, the rejection of defendants’ defence on the ground of nonproduction of partition deed is substantial question of law. 18. Per contra, Sri.B.G.Vijayakumaraswamy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the only defence set up by the defendants was a prior partition dated 27.11.2005 and all along they did not adduce any evidence in proof of the same. Therefore, both the courts below have rightly concluded that said partition is not proved. He submits that those being the questions of fact, this Court cannot entertain the appeal again on the same issue. 19. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court has to see whether there is any substantial question of law in the case. 20. The parties did not dispute the relationship and that the properties were inherited by them from their father and they were the ancestral joint family properties. Though the plaintiff set up the Will in respect of some of those properties, the trial court did not accept her claim under the Will. She did not challenge those findings. Therefore, the findings of the courts below regarding the Will set up by the plaintiff attained finality. 21. Under the circumstances, the only question was whether there was prior partition on 27.11.2005 and whether the share of the plaintiff in the properties was paid to her by way of her marriage expenses. 22. Both the courts based on the evidence on record held that the defendants failed to prove that they spent `5,00,000/for the expenses of the marriage of the plaintiff. That question cannot be reconsidered in this case. Apart from that, performing the marriage is pious obligation of father and that there cannot be any set off for that in the share of daughter. It was not even the case of defendants that plaintiff asked defendants and her father to spend money in lieu of her share. 23. So far as the partition dated 27.11.2005, the defendants though contended that the said partition was effected under a document, did not produce such document. They claimed that the said document is impounded by the court in O.S.No.108/2006. The defendants did not adduce any evidence before the trial court to show that the said document was impounded in O.S.No.108/2006. There was no impediment for them to summon the said document from the file of O.S.No.108/2006 by filing an application under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC. 24. The defendants did not adduce any evidence before the trial court to show that the said document was impounded in O.S.No.108/2006. There was no impediment for them to summon the said document from the file of O.S.No.108/2006 by filing an application under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC. 24. For the first time before this Court, the defendants are seeking to produce the certified copy of the alleged partition deed. It is not even the original document. An additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC can be received only under the conditions prescribed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the court to receive the additional evidence only under the following three conditions: (i) Where the trial court unjustly rejected the document produced before it; (ii) where the applicant despite due diligence could not produce that; (iii) If document is required for deciding the matter or for any other substantial cause. 25. The only ground stated to receive the additional evidence is that, the document was produced in O.S.No.108/2006, therefore, they could not produce it. As already pointed out, the defendants did not adduce any evidence to show when the document was produced before the said court and that was impounded. Even otherwise it was open to the defendants to summon document invoking Order XIII Rule 10 CPC. 26. In J.Balaji Singh’s case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the first appellate court before considering the appeal on merits, had considered the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC independently, received such evidence and then proceeded to allow the appeal reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 27. Per contra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Another 2013 AIR SCW 2752 regarding the powers of the court receiving additional evidence has held as follows: “29. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realize the importance of a document does not constitute a “substantial cause” within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. 30. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. 30. The words “for any other substantial cause” must be read with the word “requires” in the beginning of sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court requires additional evidence, that this rule will apply, e.g., when evidence has been taken by the lower Court so imperfectly that the Appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment.” (emphasis supplied) 28. In this case, the document sought to be produced is not the primary document, the genuineness of the said document is disputed. The appellants have failed to satisfy that despite due diligence, they could not produce that before the trial court. Further since the document is not even the primary document, even if production is allowed, that will not serve any purpose and help the court in deciding the matter. 29. Under these circumstances, the courts below on sound appreciation of the evidence on record awarded 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. The succession had opened after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the only surviving heirs of said Bommaiah and therefore, awarding the share is also in accordance with law. 30. This Court does not find any substantial question of law to admit the appeal. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2018 and the appeal are dismissed with costs. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and is disposed of accordingly.