JUDGMENT : Anjuli Palo, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2020, passed by the First Addl. District Judge, Mauganj District Rewa (MP) in Regular Civil Appeals No. 44A/2017 and 40A/2017 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2017, passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Mauganj, District Rewa in Civil Suit No. 44A/2013. 2. The appellant/plaintiff's case is that she belongs to the family of Baramdeen Singh and Trilok Singh who are real brothers. In the year 1980, the suit property was mutually partitioned between them including property bearing Khasra No. 464/1 admeasuring 0.12 acre land. 0.06 acre of land was received by both Trilok Singh and Baramdeen Singh individually. Appellant/plaintiff is the daughter of Baramdeen. Trilok Singh had no children therefore, appellant/plaintiff resided with him as his daughter and received his share in the suit property by Batwara Pulli dated 05.02.2006. She contended that since 1982, appellant/plaintiff was in possession of the suit lands and resided in the house situated on Khasra No. 464/1. In the year 2009, Trilok Singh ousted her from the said house and locked the premises. He lodged a complaint against her in the police station. As the suit property was recorded in the name of Trilok Singh, he sold the suit land No. 2 through registered sale deed in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4. Appellant/plaintiff has alleged that she is in possession of the disputed lands, therefore, Trilok Singh has no right to transfer the suit property. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid sale deeds and mutation of names of respondent No. 2 to 4 over the suit lands be declared null and void. She also prayed for declaration of title over the disputed lands situated at village Sarai Sengar, Tehsil Mauganj, District Rewa bearing Khasra Nos. 447/2, 464/1, 563, 425, 429, 430, 240, 237, 248, 448, 465 total area admeasuring 5.36 acres. She further prayed to declare the mutation order dated 30.09.2010 null and void and issue permanent injunction restraining the interference of the respondents over the aforesaid lands. 3. Respondents denied the appellant's contentions and submitted that, suit property was under the joint possession of Baramdeen Singh and Trilok Singh. Bhaiyyalal Singh was the son of Baramdeen Singh who died in the year 2008 and Baramdeen Singh died in the year 2012. 3. Respondents denied the appellant's contentions and submitted that, suit property was under the joint possession of Baramdeen Singh and Trilok Singh. Bhaiyyalal Singh was the son of Baramdeen Singh who died in the year 2008 and Baramdeen Singh died in the year 2012. Dharmendra Singh is the son of Bhaiyyalal. The entire property was partitioned between Dharmendra Singh and Trilok Singh on 04.05.2010. Consequently, Trilok Singh received his share in the suit property, therefore, he has the right to transfer his share. Accordingly, he sold his properties to respondents No. 2 to 4. They also contended that appellant has no right in the properties, hence, the appellant is not entitled for any of the relief claimed by her. 4. The suit filed by the appellants has been dismissed by the trial Court holding that the appellant has not proved that any partition has been effected between her and Trilok Singh nor the Batwara Pulli dated 05.02.2006 has been produced by her. Thus, she has no right over the suit properties. 5. A counter claim was filed by the respondents for declaration of exclusive title over the suit lands and for permanent injunction, restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their possession over the same. The counter claim was dismissed by the learned trial Court holding that neither it was proved that Trilok Singh's has any title over the suit land No. 2 nor it was proved that the present appellant created any interference in the possession of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 6. Aforesaid decree has been challenged by appellant/plaintiff as well as Trilok Singh and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the first appeal. Learned first Appellate Court passed a common judgment in Civil Appeal No. 40A/2017 and 44A/2017 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff and a decree was passed in favour of the respondents setting aside the findings of the trial Court. 1 to 3 in the first appeal. Learned first Appellate Court passed a common judgment in Civil Appeal No. 40A/2017 and 44A/2017 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff and a decree was passed in favour of the respondents setting aside the findings of the trial Court. The following decree was passed by the first Appellate Court: ^^1- vihykFkhZ xhrk flag dh vihy Øå&44,@17 vLohdkj djrs gq, vkyksP; fu.kZ; o vkKfIr dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA 2- vihykFkhZx.k Jherh deyk flag o vU; dh izfrnkok fujLrh ds laca/k esa izLrqr vihy Øå&40,@17 Lohdkj djrs gq, izfrnkok fujLrh ds laca/k esa vkyksP; fu.kZ; dks vikLr fd;k x;kA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk ?kksf"kr fu.kZ; vkSj t;i= fnukad 19-05-2017 izfrnkos ds laca/k esa fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vihy Øå&40,@17 dh vihykFkhZ Øå&01 dks xzke ljà lsaxj rglhy emxat faLFkr Hkwfe losZ Øå&425 jdok 0-279,å] 429 jdok 0-089,å] 430 jdok 0-113,å] 883 jdok 0-0570,å] 827 jdok 0-012,å] 884 jdok 0-648,å esa ls 0-040 ,oa Øå&02 dks xzke ljà dk Hkwfe losZ Øå&246 jdok 0-304,å] 433 jdok 0-89,å] 447@2 jdok 0-202,å] 563 jdok 0-636,å] ,oa vihykFkhZ Øå&03 dks xzke ljà lsaxj dh Hkwfe losZ Øå&240 jdok 0-231,å] 237 jdok 0-138,å] 448@1@2 jdok 0-142,å] 884 jdok 0-648,å esa ls 0-016] 432 jdok 0-069 esa ls 0-061,å ,oa vihykFkhZ Øå&04 dks xzke ljà lsaxj dh Hkwfe losZ Øå&587 jdok 0-045,å] 451@1 jdok 0-045,å] 884 jdok 0-592,å] 432 jdok 0-008,å] 464@1 jdok 0-048,å] 465 jdok 0-105,å] dk HkwfeLokeh LoRo dk vkf/kiR;/kkjh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa ukekarj.k iath Øå&22 fnukad 10-04-2007 dk uk;c rglhynkj nsorkyko }kjk ikfjr ukekarj.k vkns'k fof/k fo:} gksus ls 'kwU; gSA izfrnkos dh izR;FkhZ oknxzLr Hkwfe ij izfrnkos ds vihykFkhZx.k ds Lo:i vkSj vkf/kiR; esa Lo;a ;k vius vfHkdrkZvksa ds ek/;e ls dksà voS/k gLr{ksi u djsaA 3- izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfrnkos dh izR;FkhZ@izfroknh LOk;a dk rFkk izfrnkos ds vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dk okn ogu djsaxhA 4- vf/koDrk 'kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij vFkok fu;ekuqlkj ns; gksxkA** 7. In the present appeal, the impugned judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below have been challenged by the appellant on the grounds that Courts below have erred in holding that the appellant has failed to proved any partition which have been effected between the appellant and Trilok Singh merely for non production of Batwara Pulli dated 05.02.2006. In the present appeal, the impugned judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below have been challenged by the appellant on the grounds that Courts below have erred in holding that the appellant has failed to proved any partition which have been effected between the appellant and Trilok Singh merely for non production of Batwara Pulli dated 05.02.2006. The suit land was given to her voluntarily by Trilok Singh, thus, he had no right to sell the suit lands in favour of respondents/defendants Nos. 2 to 4. Therefore, the sale deed executed by him do not confer any title to the respondents/defendants No. 2 to 4 over the suit land nor it is also submitted by the appellant that there is no material on record to show that the suit land No. 2 has also been given to Trilok Singh in the partition. Therefore, all these sale deeds are liable to be declared null and void. Lower Appellate Court illegally reversed the findings of the trial Court holding that sale deeds which were executed in respect of suit lands No. 2 are legal. Appellant/plaintiff's contention is that respondents/defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were never in actual possession of the suit property. Thus, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has proposed the following substantial question of law:- A. Whether from the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record plaintiff has legally proved that the suit lands had been allotted to her by Trilok Singh in a partition effected between them which evidence has however failed to be appreciated in proper perspective by the Courts below? B. Whether in view of the partition having been effected by Trilok Singh voluntarily between himself and plaintiff, the right to plaintiff to be allotted the suit lands in such partition can be denied to her only on the ground of her not being his blood relative? C. Whether in view of the suit lands having already been allotted by Trilok Singh to plaintiff in a partition effected between them, the sale deeds executed by Trilok Singh in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are null and void and without any authority? C. Whether in view of the suit lands having already been allotted by Trilok Singh to plaintiff in a partition effected between them, the sale deeds executed by Trilok Singh in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are null and void and without any authority? D. Whether the Lower Appellate Court had committed an error of law in reversing the finding of the trial Court in holding that the sale deeds executed by Trilok Singh favor of defendants 2 to 4 with respect to suit lands No. 2 are also legal? E. Whether from the entire material available on record plaintiff has legally proved that she is in possession of the entire suit lands whereas defendants 2 to 4 have not led any evidence to prove that they have ever been in possession of the same? 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgments and record. 10. Appellant/plaintiff claimed her title over the suit property on the basis of one 'Batwara Pulli' dated 05.02.2006 contending that the properties were partitioned between appellant and Trilok Singh. However, the Batwara Pulli dated 05.02.2006 which is the material evidence has not been produced before the trial Court. Suit property was allotted to Trilok Singh vide partition deed dated 05.04.2010. Exhibit D-03, 05, 16, 17, 24, 25 and 39 prove that Trilok Singh was the owner and possession holder of the aforesaid properties. Admittedly, appellant/plaintiff is the niece of Trilok Singh who has no legal right in the property as a 'successor'. It is not the appellant's case that she was adopted by Trilok Singh. Trilok Singh had filed written submission in the suit wherein he has denied the execution of so called Batwara Pulli. He also denied that appellant was residing with him as his daughter. The trial Court has held that the appellant has no right in the suit property as a 'successor' which belongs to Trilok Singh. The lower Appellate Court rightly held that under Section 178(A) of the MP Land Revenue Code, she has no right to claim any share in the suit property and gave its finding with regard to the same in paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment. It also held that Namantaran Panji (mutation register) does not confer any title of the appellant and same was declared null and void by the lower Appellate Court below. It also held that Namantaran Panji (mutation register) does not confer any title of the appellant and same was declared null and void by the lower Appellate Court below. She also failed to prove her possession over the suit properties. Thus, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower Appellate Court, appellant filed an application on Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional documents on record in which the Batwara Pulli dated 05.02.2006 was produced by the appellant but the lower Appellate Court dismissed the aforesaid application. Paragraphs 16 to 18 of the impugned judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court show that the appellant failed to give any explanation for non-production of the document at appropriate stage before the trial Court. Therefore, the prayer was right dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. 12. In case of Sopanrao and Anr. vs. Syed Mehmood and Ors. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 76 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "13. At this stage, it would be pertinent to point out that the appellants/defendants, during the course of this appeal, have filed a number of applications to place on record certain documents which were not on the record of the trial court. No explanation has been given in any of these applications as to why these documents were not filed in the trial court. These documents cannot be looked into and entertained at this stage. The defendants did not file these documents before the trial court. No application was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence before the first appellate court or even before the High Court. Even the applications filed before us do not set out any reasons for not filing these documents earlier and do not meet the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the applications are rejected and the documents cannot be taken into consideration." 13. In case of Kastur Chand Jain vs. Keshri Singh, reported in 2020 (3) MPLJ 414 , while dealing with similar situation, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under: "22. Hence, the applications are rejected and the documents cannot be taken into consideration." 13. In case of Kastur Chand Jain vs. Keshri Singh, reported in 2020 (3) MPLJ 414 , while dealing with similar situation, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under: "22. So far as application under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code is concerned, it is imperative for the appellant to show the due diligence. In absence of due diligence, application under Order XLI, Rule 27 cannot be accepted. Here the appellant/plaintiff has placed the documents received by him under Right to Information Act, 2005 but they are being filed at a belated stage and since this Court has already decided the controversy on legal question in which the present documents have no material bearing, therefore, acceptance of application and thereafter following the consequential follow up action under Order XLI, Rule 28, Civil Procedure Code would give a fresh lease of litigation for some more years or decades, which would not be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11386/2010 is hereby rejected." 14. From the evidence on record, it is proved that suit property shown in the schedule as suit property No. 2 was received by Trilok Singh vide partition deed dated 04.05.2010 and the same was mutated in his name. He legally acquired title over the suit land No. 2. Thereafter, he has executed sale deeds Ex. D/8, 15 and 22 in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4 and their names have rightly been mutated and registered in the revenue records. Now they are in possession of the suit lands. Thus, the lower Appellate Court rightly allowed the counter claim in their favour. 15. In case of Motilal Daulatram Bora & Ors. vs. Muralidhar Ramchandra Bhutabe (since deceased) by his LR & Ors., 1996 (3) Civil LJ 872 (SC), the Apex Court held that, the interference by the High Court in second appeal is very much limited. The High Court cannot reverse the concurrent findings taken by the trial and first Appellate Court without any basis. High Court should not overlook the aspects that the inference of concurrent findings have been drawn after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence. 16. In case Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi & Anr. The High Court cannot reverse the concurrent findings taken by the trial and first Appellate Court without any basis. High Court should not overlook the aspects that the inference of concurrent findings have been drawn after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence. 16. In case Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi & Anr. [ (2016) 10 SCC 315 ], Hon'ble Apex Court has held that under Section 100 of CPC 1908, in second appeal if there have been concurrent findings of fact by trial court and lower Appellate Court, it cannot be reopened in second appeal in absence of perversity. The Apex Court has discussed about substantial question of law and held as under: "to constitute substantial question of law there must be pleading regarding question of law involved in the matter and such legal question should emerge from sustainable findings of fact recorded by courts of fact recorded by courts below. Substantial question of law means question of law having substance, essential, real, of sound worth or considerable. Fairly arguable question of law, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where court thought is necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views then such question would be substantial question of law." 17. This Court finds that both the Courts below have considered all the issues in detail. The impugned judgments have been passed by the learned Courts below after proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. No substantial question has been found by this Court. 18. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed.