JUDGMENT : This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment & decree dated 10/02/2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Sausar, Distt. Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No.48-A/2018, whereby learned ADJ dismissed the appellants' appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25/01/2018 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Sausar, Distt. Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.2-A/2012, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-I partly allowed the suit and declared that respondent no.1 (Plaintiff of the case) is having 1/5th share in agricultural land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectare and 1/3rd share in the land survey no.342/3 area 2.022 hectare located at Halka Savanga, Tehsil Sausar (further referred to as Suit land) and is also entitled to get them partitioned and get vacant possession of his respective share in the suit lands post partition. 2. It is admitted between the parties that the land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectares was earlier owned by Ramchandra. He died in the year 1980. Ramchandra had three sons namely Madhukar (respondent no.1), Premlal (appellant no.1) and Vaman and two daughters Saraswati (respondent no.2) and Vimal (respondent no.3). Vaman has already died. Pusha Bai (appellant no.2) is the widow of Vaman. Harsha, Madhuri, Swati (appellant no.3,4 & 6 respectively) are the daughters and Sachin (appellant no.5) is the son of Vaman. The land survey no.342/3 area 2.022 hectares was jointly purchased by Madhukar, Premlal and Vaman. 3. Apart from admitted fact brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 Madhukar (plaintiff of the case) filed a Civil Suit No.2-A/2012 for partition and getting possession of his share in the suit land averring that earlier suit land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectare belonged to his father Ramchandra and after the death of Ramchandra, the heirs of Ramchandra i.e. Madhukar, Premlal, Vaman, Vimal and Saraswati became the joint owners of the land. Plaintiff Madhukar has 1/5th share in the land. Likewise, the land survey no.342/3 area 2.022 hectares was jointly purchased by the Madhukar, Premlal and Vaman. So, in that land also he has 1/3rd share. When partition was demanded, the same was refused by the appellants. So the suit land be partitioned and his share be separated and vacant possession of the land of his share be also given to him from the appellants/respondent no.1 to 6, besides a mesne profit of Rs.7000/- per year to him from them. 4. When partition was demanded, the same was refused by the appellants. So the suit land be partitioned and his share be separated and vacant possession of the land of his share be also given to him from the appellants/respondent no.1 to 6, besides a mesne profit of Rs.7000/- per year to him from them. 4. The appellants no.1,2,7 and 8 (defendants no.1, 2, 7 and 8 of the case) in their written statements denied the claim of plaintiff Madhukar and averred that after the death of Ramchandra, on 07/05/1982, Madhukar Signature Not Verified SAN (plaintiff of the case) and defendant Premlal and Vaman Rao divided their ancestral land survey no. 340 and the land survey no. 342, which was jointly purchased by them into three parts, Saraswati Bai and Vimal, daughter of Ramchandra were not given any share in the land. After partition, the three brothers continued to cultivate after occupying their share of the land, but their names were not recorded separately on the suit land in the revenue records. The area of land that came in their share was very less, they had trouble cultivating it, so appellant Premlal purchased land survey no.118/4 area 0.809 hectare from Gaya Bai in the name of Madhukar by registered sale deed dated 26/12/1996 and Premlal and Vaman gave that land to plaintiff Madhukar. In lieu of that Madhukar relinquished his share in the suit land. After that, Premlal and Vaman divided the disputed land between them and after the death of Vaman, his heirs are in possession of the land which came into their share. Because Madhukar had relinquished his share in suit land, so he has no share in it. 5. Appellants No. 3 to 5 and 6/ Defendant No.3 to 5 and 6 did not file any written statement and remained Ex Parte. 6. Learned trial Court partly allowed the plaintiff's claim and held that the appellant's/respondent's have failed to prove that earlier partition of suit land took place between Madhukar, Premlal and Vaman, the land survey no.118/4 area 0.809 hectare was purchased by Premlal and Vaman in the name of Madhukar and given to Madhukar and in lieu of that Madhukar relinquished his share in the suit land. It also held that Madhukar had 1/5th share in land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectare and 1/3rd share of land survey no.342/3 area 2.022 hectare. It also held that Madhukar had 1/5th share in land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectare and 1/3rd share of land survey no.342/3 area 2.022 hectare. Learned trial Court also held that the alleged partition deed (Ex.D/2) filed by the defendents in support of his Signature Not Verified SAN claim is not the original one. Defendants neither filed original partition deed nor they took permission to file copy of the partition deed as secondary evidence. So the partition deed (Ex.D/2) filed by the defendants is not admissible in evidence. Otherwise also defendants have failed to prove the fact that suit land was earlier partitioned between Madhukar, Premlala and Vaman and a deed was executed to that effect. Likewise, it is also not proved that the so-called relinquished deed (Ex.D-1) was executed by Madhukar, furthermore, the registration of relinquish deed is required, while the alleged relinquish deed (Ex.D/1) is not registered. So, also on the basis of that document, it can not be said that Madhukar relinquished his share in the suit land. 7. Being aggrieved from that judgment appellants/defendants no.1 to 6 filed Civil Appeal No.48-A/2018, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sausar, Distt. Chhindwara. Being still aggrieved, the appellants filed this second civil appeal. 8. Only contention of learned counsel of the appellants is that the learned Additional District Judge, Sausar, Distt. Chhindwara in its judgement did not consider the document (Ex.D/6) which shows that the appellants no.1 to 6 are the owners of the suit land and respondent no.1 Madhukar relinquished his share in the suit land. So, this second appeal is maintainable. In this regard, he also placed reliance on Hon. the Apex Court judgments passed in Ahmedsahab (dead) by Lrs. and others vs. Sayed Ismail reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 571 and in the case of Haryana State and another vs. Gram Panchayat Village Kalehri reported in (2016) 11 SCC 374 . 9. But the fact of the above mentioned cases on which reliance is placed Signature Not Verified SAN by the learned counsel of the appellants do not match with the present case. 9. But the fact of the above mentioned cases on which reliance is placed Signature Not Verified SAN by the learned counsel of the appellants do not match with the present case. In the first case, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that admission of the respondent in the written statement is binding while in this case, respondent Madhukar did not admit any fact and in the second case also, High Court did not consider the documents of title over the suit land filed by the appellants or by the respondent. While in this case, no document regarding title over suit land has been produced by the appellants for consideration. Ex.D-6 is not the document of ownership, it is an order passed by the Revenue Court (Naib Tehsildar) in a mutation proceeding. However, in that order Revenue Court held that earlier partition of suit land took place between Madhukar, Premlal and Vaman and Madhukar executed the relinquished deed (Ex.D-1), it is only the findings of the revenue court which is not binding on the civil court. So, above mentioned judgements do not assist the appellants. 10. Hon'ble the Apex court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. Yusuf Ali reported in AIR 2010 SC 2679 after referring our previous judgements held that the law on the subject emerges to the effect that Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is maintainable basically on a substantial question of law and not on facts. However, if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or based on irrelevant material, the appeal can be entertained and it is permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. 11. While in this case, the trial Court, as well as the appellate court, did not consider any irrelevant material, considered all the relevant evidence produced by both the parties and also interpreted both the documents (Ex.D-1 & D-2) filed by the appellants and held that the appellants have failed to prove that earlier partition took place between the parties and also failed to Signature Not Verified SAN prove that the respondent no.1 Madukar relinquished his share in the suit land which are the findings of facts and there is no need to interfere in the findings in the second appeal. 12. 12. Even otherwise, in this case it is admitted between the parties that the land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectares was earlier owned by Ramchandra. He died in 1980. Ramchandra had three sons namely Madhukar (respondent no.1), Premlal (appellant no.1),and Vaman and two daughters Saraswati (respondent no.2) and Vimal (respondent no.3). Vaman has already died. Pusha Bai (appellant no.2) is the widow of Vaman. Harsha, Madhuri, Swati (appellant no.3,4 & 6 respectively), are the daughters and Sachin (appellant no.5) is the son of Vaman. The land survey no.342/3 area 2.022 hectares was jointly purchased by Madhukar, Premlal and Vaman. From the admission of appellants, it is apparent that the Respondent no.1/plaintiff Madhukar has 1/5th share in the land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectares and 1/3rd share in the land survey no.342/3 area 2.022 hectares. 13. Only contention of the appellants is that after the death of Ramchandra, on 07/05/1982, Madhukar (plaintiff of the case) and defendants Premlal and Vaman Rao divided their ancestral land survey no. 340 and the land survey no. 342, which were jointly purchased by them, into three parts. Saraswati Bai and Vimal, daughter of Ramchandra were not given any share in the land. After the partition, the three brothers continued to cultivate after occupying their share of the land, but their names were not recorded separately on the suit land in the revenue records. The area of land that came into their share was very less, they had trouble cultivating it, so appellant Premlal purchased land survey no.118/4 area 0.809 hectare from Gaya Bai in the name of Madhukar by registered sale deed dated 26/12/1996 Signature Not Verified SAN and Premlal and Vaman gave that land to plaintiff Madhukar. In lieu of that Madhukar relinquished his share in the suit land. In this regard, appellants have also filed a copy of a document as partition deed (Ex.D/2) and copy of the relinquishment deed allegedly executed by Madhukar (Ex.D/1). 14. However, the document (Ex.D-2) filed by the appellants to prove the fact that the earlier partition of suit land took place between Madhukar, Premlal and Vaman is not the original document but the certified copy of the original document. The partition deed (Ex.D/2) is not the public document, therefore, it's certified copy is not admissible in the evidence without getting permission to file secondary evidence. The partition deed (Ex.D/2) is not the public document, therefore, it's certified copy is not admissible in the evidence without getting permission to file secondary evidence. While defendants neither filed original partition deed nor they took permission to file copy of the partition deed as secondary evidence. Even in the relinquish deed (ExD/1) which is alleged to be executed later i.e. on 26/12/1996 it is not mentioned that the earlier partition of suit land took place between Madhukar, Premlal and Vaman. Likewise, appellants filed document (Ex.D/1) relinquishment deed to prove the fact that Madhukar relinquished his share in the suit land, but that document is also a copy of original document and not public document, therefore it's certified copy is not admissible in the evidence without getting permission to file secondary evidence. While defendants neither filed original relinquishment deed nor they took permission to file a copy of that document as secondary evidence, furthermore, the registration of relinquishment deed is required, while the alleged relinquishment deed (Ex.D/1) is not registered. So, also on the basis of that document, it can not be said that Madhukar relinquished his share in the suit land. 15. However, Revenue Court (Naib Tehsildar) in its order (Ex.D/6) passed in a mutation proceedings held that earlier partition of suit land took place Signature Not Verified SAN between Madhukar, Premlal and Vaman and Madhukar executed the relinquished deed (Ex.D-1), but it is the findings of the revenue court which is not binding on the civil court. Even in that order, it is mentioned that Madhukar in his reply clearly denied the fact that earlier partition of suit land took place between Madhukar, Premlal and Vaman and he relinquished his share in the suit land and executed a relinquish deed (Ex.D-1). So, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court as well as appellate Court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the appellants' plea and holding that respondent no.1/plaintiff Madhukar has 1/5th share in the land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectares and 1/3rd share in the land survey no.342/3 area 2.022 hectares located at Halka Savanga, Tehsil Sausar and he is also entitled to get them partitioned and get vacant possession of his respective share in the suit lands thereafter. 16. 16. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. 17. Hence, appeal is dismissed at the motion stage and judgement and decree passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is hereby affirmed. Consequently, IA no.3636/2020 an application for stay under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is also dismissed. No order as to the costs. Office is directed to prepare the decree as per law and send the record of the trial Court to the trial Court along with the copy of the judgment and decree.