JUDGMENT : Anjuli Palo, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants being aggrieved by the judgment/decree dated 14.09.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in Civil Appeal No. 20A/2015 arising out of the judgment/decree dated 27.09.2014 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Laudi in Civil Suit No. 11A/2012 whereby the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2019. 2. The appellant No. 1/defendant and respondent No. 1/plaintiff are real brothers. The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of sale deed dated 04.10.2011 as null and void and also challenging the order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 18.11.2011 and proposal No. 2/38 dated 15.08.2008 passed by the gram sabha Kandela to be null and void. He further prayed for possession over the ½ share of the disputed property. The trial Court partially allowing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, passed the following decree: ^^1- oknh oknxzLr Hkwfe fLFkr ekStk danSyk] rglhy xkSfjgkj] ftyk Nrjiqj ¼e-Á-½ ds vkjkth ua- 115@2] 376] 377@2 ,oa 788 dqy fdrk 4] dqy ,d= jdok 1-947 gSDVs;j ds 1@2 Hkkx dk LoRo/kkjh gSA 2- Áfroknh Ø- 2 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr jftLVMZ foØ;i= fnukad 04-10-2011 oknh ds LoRo ds 1@2 va'kHkkx rd 'kwU; gksdj oknh ij ca/kudkjh ugha gSA 3- pwafd oknxzLr Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gS] vr% oknh oknxzLr Hkwfe dk /kkjk 54 lgifBr vkns'k 20 fu;e 18 lh-ih-ih- ds Áko/kkuksa ds rgr jktLo U;k;ky; ls vius 1@2 va'kHkkx dk caVokjk djkdj oknxzLr Hkwfe dk 1@2 va'kHkkx dk dCtk Áfroknh Ø- 2 ls ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 4- oknh vi;kZIr U;k;ky; 'kqYd 80 #i;s vnk djsxkA 5- Áfroknh Ø- 1 ,oa 2 Lo;a dk ,oa oknh dk okn O;; ogu djsaxsaA 6- vfHkHkk"kd 'kqYd Áekf.kr gksus ij ;k fu;ekuqlkj tks de gks ns; gksA** 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment/decree passed by the trial Court, present appellant/defendant preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 20A/2015 before the appellate Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court held that the disputed land belongs to the Sarju-father of the appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 and after the death of their father, the suit property was mutated in the name of Ramavtar/appellant No. 1. The lower appellate Court held that the disputed land belongs to the Sarju-father of the appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 and after the death of their father, the suit property was mutated in the name of Ramavtar/appellant No. 1. The Court below held that it is not proved that during the lifetime of their father-Sarju, the property was partitioned between the appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1. Thus, the Court below held that only on the basis of mutation, appellant No. 1/defendant is not entitled to claim ownership over the entire suit property. The lower Appellate Court further observed that Ramavtar/appellant had illegally dispossessed the respondent/plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, it was held that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of his share in the suit land. 4. The appellants/defendants have challenged the impugned judgments before this Court on the ground that the findings recorded by the Courts below are illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appellants also contended that the Courts below have not appreciated the submissions of the witnesses and ignored the fact, their father and respondent/plaintiff have given share of the suit property to the appellant/defendant 20 years ago. Hence, the appellant/defendant received the entire share of the suit property bearing khasra No. 34/1/2 and khasra No. 38 and remaining land has been received by respondent/plaintiff. There were some admission by the respondent/plaintiff himself and the civil suit was time barred, however, the Courts below have ignored the same and passed a decree in favour of respondent/plaintiff which is liable to be set aside. 5. It is admitted fact that the suit property belonged to the father of the appellant No. 1 and the respondent No. 1. In paragraph 17 of the judgment passed by the trial Court, it is mentioned that the name of Sarju was found mention as owner or lessee of the property in question in all the khasra entries from 2004-05 till 2008-09. On 15.08.2008, according to proposal of Gram Sabha, the name of Ramavtar has been recorded in place of the name of his father Sarju. But nothing has been mentioned in the mutation order that the suit property was divided during life time of his father Sarju. After the death of Sarju, the name of Ramavtar was mutated in a routine manner. But nothing has been mentioned in the mutation order that the suit property was divided during life time of his father Sarju. After the death of Sarju, the name of Ramavtar was mutated in a routine manner. It is important to note here that both the courts below have considered the fact that during life time of his father, the appellant did not proceed for mutation of the property in his favour. The suit property was in possession of the appellant even though the trial Court passed an injunction order in favour of the respondent, the appellant dispossessed him from the suit property. 6. In the case of Kirpa Ram (D) Tr. Lrs. v. Surender Deo Gaur, (Civil Appeal No. 8971 of 2010 decided on 16.11.2020) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is further held that the High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the first appellate court. 7. 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 that: "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." 8. 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." 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record as well as judgments passed by the Courts below, it is apparent that the findings arrived at by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. On careful scrutiny of the judgments of the courts below, on the anvil of aforesaid enunciations of law, there is no illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below warranting interference by this Court. No substantial question arises for consideration by this Court in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, the second Appeal is dismissed. Resultantly, I.A. No. 12429/2019 also stands dismissed.