JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Anjad, District Barwani in Civil Suit No.32-A/2015 and judgment dated 11.07.2017 passed by First ADJ, Barwani in Civil Appeal No.18/2016, whereby the Civil Suit as well as the First Appeal both have been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in short are as under: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of tittle in respect of land bearing survey Nos.225, 226, 227/53/3, 314, 319, 323, 335, 337, 339/1, 287/145/3, 244/2/1, 336/1/2, 1/8, 340/1/1, 36 B and 361/1/2/3 total area 0.599 (herein after referred as 'suit property') on the ground that he is in possession and his name is liable to the mutated in record records. 3. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the aforesaid suit land from Ghisilal by way of 'agreement to sale' dated 29.04.1995 for total sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. He was given the possession of land at the time of execution of the deed, but, his name has not been mutated in the revenue record. Now, the defendants No.1 & 2 are trying to dispossess him from the suit property, therefore, he has filed the suit for declaration of title and direction for recording his name in the revenue record. The defendants No.1 & 2 were proceeded ex parte. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court has framed four issues for adjudication. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got exhibited the agreement to sale dated 06.02.2016 as [Exhibit P/1], Kishbandi Khatoni as [Exhibit P/2], Panchnama as [Exhibit P/3] and Registered notice as [Exhibit P/4]. The plaintiff has also examined Chhagan as PW. 2 and Chhotelal as PW.3. After appreciating the evidence on record vide judgment dated 15.02.2016 learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit. Thereafter, plaintiff has preferred the First appeal that too has been dismissed vide judgment dated 11.07.2017, hence the present second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff is in possession since 1995 which he has proved by way of Exhibit P/1 and oral evidence of PW.2 and PW.3. The suit land was sold by father of the defendants No.1 & 2 to him and he paid the entire sale consideration to him, therefore, he is entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue record. The suit land was sold by father of the defendants No.1 & 2 to him and he paid the entire sale consideration to him, therefore, he is entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue record. Since there is no rebuttal or denial by the defendants before the Court, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Court to accept the evidence produced by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit. Learned counsel further submits that the first appellate Court has wrongly given the finding on the issue of possession when it was not in dispute before the trial Court and no issue was framed. 6. The plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of Exhibit P/1, which is neither registered nor properly stamped. 7. According to him, he had purchased the suit land for Rs. 10,000/- by the aforesaid deed but, under the Transfer of Property Act, if the property under sale is more than Rs.100/- then registered sale deed is mandatory. 8. On the basis of the Exhibit P/1, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for specific performance, instead he files the suit for declaration, therefore, both the Courts below have not committed any error in dismissing the suit. Even otherwise, the Court has also observed that there are other legal heirs of Ghisilal, apart from the defendants No.1 & 2, therefore, without impleading others legal heirs the declaration cannot be granted. 8. So far the issue of possession is concerned, in first appeal the plaintiff has claimed the decree of title by way of adverse possession. In order to consider the plea of adverse possession, it is mandatory to examine the continuous possession of plaintiff adverse to the actual owner. The apex Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Waqf vs. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 has laid down the criteria for granting the decree of adverse possession, therefore, in order to consider the relief for declaration of title by way of adverse possession, the issue of possession has rightly been considered by the apex Court. Therefore, appellate Court has also not committed any error while considering the issue of possession except oral evidence and agreement Exhibit P/1. There is no evidence to prove the possession. Even the exhibit P/1 is not a eligible document to read the contends of the factum of possession. 9. Therefore, appellate Court has also not committed any error while considering the issue of possession except oral evidence and agreement Exhibit P/1. There is no evidence to prove the possession. Even the exhibit P/1 is not a eligible document to read the contends of the factum of possession. 9. Even otherwise, the Apex Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar : (1999) 3 SCC 722 , has held as under: 5. It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence. 6. If the question of law termed as a substantial ques-tion stands already decided by a larger Bench of the High Court concerned or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court, its merely wrong application on the facts of the case would not be termed to be a substantial question of law. Where a point of law has not been pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the absence of any factual format, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. Where a point of law has not been pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the absence of any factual format, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of the facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning of entries and the contents of the document cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. But where it is found that the first appellate court has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal, treating it as a substantial question of law. Where the first appellate court is shown to have exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, it cannot be termed to be an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. This Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Ramkrishna Govind Morey [ AIR 1976 SC 830 ]held that whether the trial court should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently is not a question of law justifying interference. 10. In case of Laxmidevamma v. Ranganath : (2015) 4 SCC 264 , again the Apex court has held as under: 16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for reappreciation 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 fullfledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, 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. 11. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Adiveppa & Others Vs. Bhimappa & Others : (2017) 9 SCC 586 has held as under: "17. 11. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Adiveppa & Others Vs. Bhimappa & Others : (2017) 9 SCC 586 has held as under: "17. Here is a case where two Courts below, on appreciating the entire evidence, have come to a conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their case in relation to both the suit properties. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts, which do not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law, are binding on this Court. 18. It is more so when these findings are neither against the pleadings nor against the evidence and nor contrary to any provision of law. They are also not perverse to the extent that no such findings could ever be recorded by any judicial person. In other words, unless the findings of facts, though concurrent, are found to be extremely perverse so as to affect the judicial conscious of a judge, they would be binding on the Appellate Court." 12. In view of the above, this appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.