JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. None appeared for the Respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2019 passed in Title Appeal No. 5/2018 by the First Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 60/2007 was affirmed. 3. Before deciding the contentions raised by the counsel as aforementioned, it would be necessary to look into the jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 100 of the CPC. It is relevant herein to mention that the instant appeal arises out of a concurrent findings of facts. Section 100 of the CPC permits the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction against an appellate decree only when there arises a substantial question of law. The word ‘substantial’ prefixed to ‘question of law’ does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. ‘Substantial question of law’ means not only ‘substantial question of law’ of general importance, but also a substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of Section 100 of the CPC, any question of law, which affects the final decision in a case is a ‘substantial question of law’ as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally having no bearing in the final outcome will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation of a ‘question of law’ it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally having no bearing in the final outcome will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation of a ‘question of law’ it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled, arises for consideration in the case but this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective meaning thereby that where there is a clear enunciation of law and the Lower Court has followed or rigidly applied, such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance. On the other hand, if there is a clear enunciation of law, but the Lower Court had ignored or misinterpreted or misapplied the same, and correct application of the law as declared or enunciated by the Supreme Court or this Court would have led to a different decision, the appeal would involve a ‘substantial question of law’ as between the parties. Even where there is an enunciation of law by the Supreme Court or this Court and the same has been followed by the Lower Court and if the appellant is able to persuade this Court i.e. that the enunciated legal position needs reconsideration, alteration, modification or clarification or that there is a need to resolve an apparent conflict between two different viewpoints, it can be said that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. In that view of the matter, there cannot, therefore be a straight jacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case. It shall depend on the facts of each case along with the decision rendered by the Courts below. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LRs. (2001) 3 SCC 179 discussed what would be a substantial question of law in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, which are quoted herein-below: “12. The phrase substantial question of law, as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying question of law, means - of having substance, essential, real of sound worth, important or considerable. The phrase substantial question of law, as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying question of law, means - of having substance, essential, real of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with - technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the Legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of substantial question of law by suffixing the words of general importance as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta and Another vs. T. Ram Ditta, AIR 1928 PC 172 , the phrase substantial question of law as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 of the C.P.C. (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and Their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. vs. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1962) Supp. 3 SCR 549, the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao vs. Noony Veeraju, ILR 1952 Madras 264: When a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative view, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest Court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular fact of the case it would not be a substantial question of law and laid down the following test as proper test, for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial: “The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.” 13. In Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi in Charge Court of Wards, Bharawan Estate vs. Rama Krishna Narain and Others, AIR 1953 SC 521 , also it was held that a question of law of importance to the parties was a substantial question of law entitling the appellant to certificate under (the then) Section 110 of the Code. 14. A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law involving in the case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.” 5. In the backdrop of the above, taking into consideration that the instant appeal is taken up for hearing at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC, it would be relevant to find out as to whether the substantial question of law as urged by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants can at all be formulated as a substantial question of law for the purpose of adjudication of the instant appeal. 6. The appellants before this Court have contended that the substantial question of law is involved in the instant case which needs to be formulated for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal. Let this Court first take up each of the formulated questions of law as alleged to be substantial by the counsel for the appellants. 7. The first question of law contended to be substantial question of law is that there was no issue framed as to whether the registered Sale Deeds being Exts.1 to 5 were duly registered or not. Let this Court first take up each of the formulated questions of law as alleged to be substantial by the counsel for the appellants. 7. The first question of law contended to be substantial question of law is that there was no issue framed as to whether the registered Sale Deeds being Exts.1 to 5 were duly registered or not. It is a trite principle of law that the issue is framed on the basis of the pleadings and to form a substantial question of law it is required that such question of law has a foundation in the pleadings. I do not see from a perusal of the written statement filed that there is any foundation laid that the registered Deeds of Sale being Exts.1 to 5 were not duly registered. More so, a perusal of the Exhibits 1 to 5, the certified copies of which were produced by the counsel for the Appellants show that the said Exhibits were duly registered documents. 8. The second question of law sought to be formulated as a substantial question of law is as regards the Issue No. 7 has not been properly adjudicated and it was contended that the same has been decided on the basis of conjectures and surmises. I have perused the decision of both the Courts below in respect to the Issue No. 7 and from the judgments and decrees impugned, it is apparent that the Courts below had duly taken into consideration the evidence on record in arriving at the finding as regards possession, more so, the question of possession is a finding of fact and the appellants have not been able to demonstrate before this Court any perversity in the said findings of the Courts below. Accordingly, the same also cannot be considered to be a substantial question of law to be formulated. 9. The third question of law contended to be formulated as a substantial question of law is that the Issue No. 6 has not been properly decided which pertains as to whether the registered Deeds of Sale were forged. Accordingly, the same also cannot be considered to be a substantial question of law to be formulated. 9. The third question of law contended to be formulated as a substantial question of law is that the Issue No. 6 has not been properly decided which pertains as to whether the registered Deeds of Sale were forged. A perusal of both the judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court reveal that the said aspect of the matter has been duly taken note of and more so the defendants who are the appellants before this Court have alleged fraud in respect to the Deeds of Sale exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 5, it was a burden upon the appellants to prove that the said documents were executed fraudulently. The Courts below have duly taken note of that aspect of the matter and had come to a finding that the appellants have failed to prove that the said Exhibits. 1 to 5 have been executed fraudulently. This aspect of the matter is also an issue of fact and as such the same also cannot be considered to be a substantial question of law, more so, in absence of any perversity being shown. 10. The fourth question of law which was contended to be formulated as a substantial question of law is as regards the mutation of the plaintiffs having been cancelled have not been considered by both the Courts below. As the suit filed by the plaintiff is a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession, the cancellation of the mutation would take a backseat in as much as mutation does not confer any title and with the declaration of the right, title and interest, the cancellation of the mutation would have no impact on the final adjudication of the dispute involved. Consequently, the same also cannot be formulated as a substantial question of law. 11. In view of the above, the instant appeal being devoid of any substantial question of law stands dismissed at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC. No costs.