JUDGMENT : Vivek Rusia, J. 1. This is a second appeal filed by defendant No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.2017 passed by first Civil Judge, Class-I, Neemuch whereby the suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs has been partly decreed and therefore affirmed by third Additional District Judge, Neemuch vide judgment dated 11.2.2020 by dismissing Civil Appeal No. 46-A/2018 filed by defendant No. 1. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under: (i) Respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") are real brothers and permanent residents of Village Kalikotdi, Tehsil Jeeran, District Neemuch. They purchased agricultural land bearing Survey 22 area 0.64 Hect. (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land") by way of registered sale-deed dated 20.7.1989 from Smt. Ghisi Bai and Smt. Sajnibai who were sisters, which they had succeeded from their mother late Hagami Bai. After the death of Hagami Bai, her daughters viz. Ghisi Bai and Sajnibai became the owner of the suit land and they sold the same to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed Revenue Case No. 34/A-6/04-05 before the Tehsildar seeking mutation of their name. Vide order dated 9.9.2006 vide Ex. D/6, their names had been mutated in the revenue record. The Land Acquisition Officer, Neemuch has registered the case for acquisition of the suit land i.e. Case No. 03/A-82/2012-13 and issued notice dated 28.5.2013 to the plaintiffs. (ii) The plaintiffs came to know that defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2 has got mutated the suit land his name vide order dated 6.5.2013 (Ex. P/8) passed in Case No. 5/B-121/2012-13 and got mutated his name in the revenue record and now he is trying to get the amount of compensation from defendant No. 3. The aforesaid order dated 6.5.2013 gave a cause of action to the plaintiffs to file a suit for the relief of declaration of their ownership and declaration that the order dated 6.5.2013 is void and not binding on them. The plaintiffs also sought the relief of permanent injunction that defendants No. 1 and 2 be restrained from alienating the suit land and defendant No. 3 be also restrained from giving the amount of compensation to defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs also sought the relief of permanent injunction that defendants No. 1 and 2 be restrained from alienating the suit land and defendant No. 3 be also restrained from giving the amount of compensation to defendant No. 1. (iii) Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement denying that Gheesibai and Sajnibai were ever owners of the suit land, hence they had no right to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the original owner of the suit land was Hagami Bai and after her death, her daughter - Gheesibai i.e. mother of defendant No. 1 became the owner of the suit land, after her death, by way of succession he had become the absolute owner of the suit land. Therefore, he filed an application for mutation of his name in the revenue record vide Case No. 5/B-121/2012-13 by impleading the plaintiffs as non-applicants, but they did not choose to appear in the said proceedings. Defendant No. 1 also filed a counterclaim seeking the relief of a permanent injunction against the plaintiffs that they be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. (iv) On the basis of pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed six issues for adjudication, which are as under: ^^1- D;k oknh fookfnr Hkwfe ds Lokeh gSa\ 2- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe ij izfroknh Øekad 01 ds ukekarj.k dk vkns'k fnukad 06-05-2013 voS/k gksdj 'kqU;or~ gS\ 3- D;k izfroknh Øekad 01 voS/k :i ls fookfnr Hkwfe ds foØ; gsrq iz;kljr~ gSa\ 4- D;k izfroknh Øekad 01 fookfnr Hkwfe ds fof/kd vkf/kiR;/kkjh gSa\ 5- D;k oknh fookfnr Hkwfe ds izfroknh Øekad 01 ds vkf/kiR; esa voS/k :i ls gLr{ksi dj jgs gSa\ 6- lgk;rk ,oa O;;\** In support of the case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1 as P.W. 1 and got exhibited 15 documents as Ex. P/1 to P/15. Defendant No. 1 examined himself as D.W. 1 and got exhibited 11 documents as Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/11. (v) The plaintiff produced a certified copy of sale-deed dated 20.7.1989 as Ex. P/1, Defendant No. 1 raised an objection that such a Certified Copy of the sale-deed is not a public document, hence not admissible in the evidence as primary evidence. Learned Civil Judge has permitted the plaintiffs to mark the certified copy of the sale-deed as Ex. D/11. (v) The plaintiff produced a certified copy of sale-deed dated 20.7.1989 as Ex. P/1, Defendant No. 1 raised an objection that such a Certified Copy of the sale-deed is not a public document, hence not admissible in the evidence as primary evidence. Learned Civil Judge has permitted the plaintiffs to mark the certified copy of the sale-deed as Ex. P/1 and its admissibility in evidence would be decided at the time of the final hearing. (vi) After appreciating the evidence that came on the record, learned Civil Judge has decided that Ex. P/1 being a certified copy is not admissible in evidence because the plaintiffs have not filed any application seeking permission to prove the sale-deed as a secondary evidence. While answering Issue No. 1, learned Civil Judge has held that plaintiffs' name had been recorded in the revenue record vide order dated 9.9.2006 as "Bhoomi Swami", therefore, they are "Bhoomi Swami" of the suit land. While answering Issue No. 2, learned Civil Judge has held that order dated 6.5.2013 (Ex. P/8) has been passed by the Tehsildar without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs, hence the same is illegal and void. While answering Issue No. 3, learned Civil Judge has held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that defendant No. 1 is going to alienate the suit land. While answering Issue Nos. 4 and 5, learned Civil Judge has held that defendant No. 1 has failed to prove that the plaintiffs are trying to interfere in his peaceful possession because he has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit land. In view of the above, while answering Issue No. 6, learned Civil Judge has dismissed the counter claim filed by defendant No. 1. Vide judgment dated 21.4.2017, learned Civil Judge has partly decreed the suit by declaring order dated 6.5.2013 as illegal and void. (vii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, defendant No. 1 filed the first appeal which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 11.2.2020 mainly on the ground that defendant No. 1 did not challenge sale-deed dated 20.7.1989 and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. Hence, the present second appeal before this Court. 3. (vii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, defendant No. 1 filed the first appeal which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 11.2.2020 mainly on the ground that defendant No. 1 did not challenge sale-deed dated 20.7.1989 and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. Hence, the present second appeal before this Court. 3. Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 1/appellant submits that when the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership over the suit land by producing the original sale-deed dated 20.7.1989, then it was not incumbent upon defendant No. 1 to challenge the said sale-deed. Had the plaintiffs filed the original sale-deed and established their ownership, defendant No. 1 would have challenged the validity of the said sale-deed by way of countersuit. Therefore, learned courts below have wrongly treated the plaintiffs as the owner of the suit land on the basis of the certified copy of the sale-deed which has not been proved by way of secondary evidence. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rekha Wd/o. Vijay Singh Rana V/s. Smt. Ratnashree, 2006 (1) MPLJ 103 in which it has been held that a registered sale-deed is not a public document but a private document. A certified copy of the registered document extracted from Book It is not itself a public document and it will be proved only by way of secondary evidence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the plaintiffs were served in the mutation proceedings, but after appearance once, they have stopped appearing in the said proceedings, therefore, learned Tehsildar did not commit any error of law while passing the order dated 6.5.2013 in favour of defendant No. 1. It is further submitted that Hagami Bai was the owner of the suit land and after her death, the names of Gheesibai and Sajnibai were never mutated, therefore, they had no right to sale the suit land to the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 being the son of Gheesibai has inherited the land of Hagami Bail, hence his name was rightly mutated in the revenue record. 4. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2, argued in support of impugned judgments and decree and prayed for dismissal of this second appeal. 5. Defendant No. 1 being the son of Gheesibai has inherited the land of Hagami Bail, hence his name was rightly mutated in the revenue record. 4. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2, argued in support of impugned judgments and decree and prayed for dismissal of this second appeal. 5. That, defendant No. 1 has proposed the following substantial questions of law: "A. Whether learned courts below have committed grave error of law in holding the plaintiff owner of the suit land on the basis of mutation in his name overlooking the fact that trial Court has held that title document of plaintiff sale deed is not admissible in evidence? B. Whether learned courts below were not justified in shifting the burden of proof on defendant that they have to prove that sale deed was not executed by Ghisi Bai and Sajnibai. Initial burden to prove sale deed was not discharged by the plaintiff and court has also held that sale deed is not admissible in evidence. When primary burden is not proved than courts below were not justified in shifting the burden of proof on defendant? C. Whether civil court could have set aside the order passed by tehsildar in mutation proceedings and not directing plaintiff to challenge that order in appeal before revenue authority in accordance with the provisions of MP Land Revenue Code? D. Whether after initiation of land acquisition proceedings objection with regards to disbursement and entitlement of compensation in favour of any party can be decided by civil court? E. Whether judgment and decree passed by the courts below is bad in law as it exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the order passed by revenue court against which an appeal is provided under MP Land Revenue Code? F. Whether learned trial court committed grave error of law in dismissing the defendant application for taking the Patta on record which is the title document of Hangamibai? G. Whether first appellate court has wrongly shifted the burden of proof on defendant whereas it is always on plaintiff? H. Whether first appellate court has not appreciated the evidence as per the duty casted on first appellate court being last court on fact? I. Whether judgment and decree passed by the court below is unsustainable in law as it is based on assumption and presumptions?" Heard and perused the record. 6. H. Whether first appellate court has not appreciated the evidence as per the duty casted on first appellate court being last court on fact? I. Whether judgment and decree passed by the court below is unsustainable in law as it is based on assumption and presumptions?" Heard and perused the record. 6. The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming ownership on the basis of sale-deed dated 20.7.1989 executed by Gheesi Bai and Sajnibai in their favour. Thereafter, they applied for the mutation before Tehsildar. Before the Tehsildar, Gheesibai and Sajnibai did not appear because they had already expired, but the plaintiffs got examined Babulal S/o. Pyarji to establish the sale. After examining the revenue record and the sale-deed, learned Tehsildar has passed order of mutation on 9.9.2006 in favour of the plaintiffs. 7. If defendant No. 1 was aggrieved by the mutation order dated 9.9.2006, then he ought to have preferred an appeal u/s. 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Sub Divisional Officer, but instead of preferring an appeal, he filed a fresh application for mutation of his name in the revenue record before the Tehsildar which is not maintainable. He had the knowledge that the names of the plaintiffs had already been mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 9.9.2006 and he wanted his name to be mutated in the revenue record, then the remedy available to him to file an appeal and not to file an application for the mutation before the Tehsildar. Order dated 9.9.2006 has not been set aside by the appellate authority/Sub Divisional Officer, therefore, said order still stands in favour of the plaintiffs. 8. It is correct that the plaintiffs have filed a certified copy of the sale-deed dated 20.7.1989 which is not a public document, then they ought to have filed an application to prove Certified Copy of sale deed as secondary evidence as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rekha (supra), but in the same judgment, the Division Bench has held that the certified copy of the sale-deed is merely a proof of the fact that the original document was registered in the Registration Office. The sale has to be established by production of the original sale-deed. The sale has to be established by production of the original sale-deed. The original sale-deed was not produced before the Civil Court, but it was produced before the revenue authority at the time of mutation and after verifying from the revenue record and the sale-deed, the names of the plaintiffs had been mutated and as held above, the said order has not been set aside or challenged by defendant No. 1. 9. So far as ownership of the Gheesi bai and Sajni bai of the suit land is concerned, it is not in dispute that Gheesibai and Sajnibai were the daughters of Hagami Bai. Defendant No. 1 has also not disputed that the original owner of the suit land was Hagami Bai and Gheesibai was her daughter. However, he has also not denied that Sajnibai was not the daughter of Hagami Bai. Therefore, in that case, there is no reason to disbelieve that Gheesibai and Sajnibai had succeeded in the property of Hagami Bai hence they had right to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 has also not established that he is the only successor of Hagami Bai to inherit the property left by her. The sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs came to his knowledge, but he did not seek the relief of declaration of ownership by challenging the sale-deed. 10. Defendant No. 1 had malafide intention to file an application for the mutation before the Tehsildar because the suit land went into acquisition and notification for compensation was issued to the plaintiffs, he rushed to the Tehsildar and got an order of mutation in his name without seeking a declaration of title. The revenue records/Khasra filed by the plaintiffs as well as by defendant No. 1 establish that the name of Hagami Bai was recorded as "Bhoomi Swami" and after 2006, names of plaintiffs were mutated but in the year 2013, defendant No. 1 got mutated his name. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the order of mutation dated 6.5.2013 (Ex. P/8) is illegal and void. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 11. 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. P/8) is illegal and void. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 11. 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 question 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. 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. 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. In case of Laxmidevamma v. Ranganath, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , again the Apex court has held as under: 16. ...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. The Apex Court in case of Adiveppa & Others Vs. Bhimappa & Others, (2017) 9 SCC 586 has held as under: "17. ...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." Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.