ORDER : 1. Heard on admission. 2. The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 100 of CPC challenging the impugned judgment and decree 17/10/2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur by which the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 96 of CPC was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30/11/2006 passed in Civil Suit No.21-A/ 2004 was affirmed. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell is that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title on the basis of a Will and also for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff also claimed that mutation order dated 27/02/2004 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and other ancillary relief. 4. The plaintiff herein filed the aforesaid suit inter alia pleading that the suit property comprised in the piece of land bearing khasra no.43, 44, 66, 93 and 96 area 0.88 hectare, 1.40 hectare, 1.58 hectare, 0.31 hectare and 2.10 hectare respectively total 6.27 hectare and a garden (Badi) bearing Khasra no.743/6 area 0.08 hectare hectare situated at village panchayat - Mongrapal, Tahsil – Jagdalpur, was owned by one Sukhdeo. Further case of the plaintiff is that Sukhdeo has executed a Will in favour of the defendants in the year 1997. Thereafter, Sukhdeo who happens to be the brother of father of the plaintiff, came and started living with the father of the plaintiff as defendants were ill treating him. The plaintiff and his father Chetan used to take of Sukhdeo and on his own volition, Sukhdeo executed another Will dated 16/02/2001 and bequeathed the entire property in favour of the plaintiff. Further pleading of the plaintiff is that the said Will is a registered Will and he also claimed that during the pendency of the suit sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. 5. The defendant entered their appearance and filed their respective written statement and counter claim. The defendants have denied the pleadings and also denied averments of the plaint with regard to ill treatment of the deceased – Sukhdeo by them and also claimed that they are the owner and title holder of the suit land being natural legal heirs. 5. The defendant entered their appearance and filed their respective written statement and counter claim. The defendants have denied the pleadings and also denied averments of the plaint with regard to ill treatment of the deceased – Sukhdeo by them and also claimed that they are the owner and title holder of the suit land being natural legal heirs. In order to prove the pleading, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Raghunath (PW2), Sukhdeo S/o Bandhu (PW3) Surendranath (PW-4). The defendant examined Subi Bai (DW1), Asman (DW2) and Chamruram (DW3). 6. Learned trial Court has framed issue on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after evaluation of the evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff deciding the issue as against the plaintiff/appellant allowed the counter claim of the defendants. 7. Issue no.2 is with regard to valid execution of Will dated 16/02/2001. This issue has been considered by learned trial Court and on the basis of evidence brought before it, came to a conclusion that subsequent Will executed on 16/02/2001 appears to be suspicious and on the basis of evidence brought on record, decided the issue against the appellant/plaintiff. 8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that both the Courts below committed a manifest error of law in holding that Will dated 16/02/2001 is suspicious whereas the plaintiff had examined the attesting witnesses before the learned trial Court and the provisions contained in Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as well as Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 have been duly complied with. He further submits that there are evidence on record which would demonstrate that the deceased Sukhdeo was subjected to cruelty and maltreatment by the defendants and other family members, therefore he left their house and started living with the father and the plaintiff about 6 months back of execution of the Will. He submits that finding of issue no.2 is perverse to the evidence on record which would amount to involvement of substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal may be admitted. 9. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, considered his contentions and perused the record. 10. While dealing with as to what would be the “substantial question of law” the constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the matter of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Therefore, the appeal may be admitted. 9. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, considered his contentions and perused the record. 10. While dealing with as to what would be the “substantial question of law” the constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the matter of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 has held as under: “6. We are in general agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court and we think that while the view taken by the Bombay High Court is rather narrow the one taken by the former High Court of Nagpur is too wide. 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.” 11. The aforesaid judicial mandate of the Supreme Court has subsequently been followed in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 and summaries the principle relating to section 100 of CPC as under:- “33. The principles relating to Section 100 of the CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus: (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision based on no evidence", it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharpur Singh and others Vs. Shamsher Singh reported in (2009) 3 SCC 687 elaborated the suspicious circumstances which may surround in execution of a will and observed as under:- “23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharpur Singh and others Vs. Shamsher Singh reported in (2009) 3 SCC 687 elaborated the suspicious circumstances which may surround in execution of a will and observed as under:- “23. Suspicious circumstances like the following may be found to be surrounded in the execution of the Will: i. The signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful or not appear to be his usual signature. ii. The condition of the testator's mind may be very feeble and debilitated at the relevant time. iii. The disposition may be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances like exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for the natural heirs without any reason. iv. The dispositions may not appear to be the result of the testator's free will and mind. v. The propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will. vi. The testator used to sign blank papers. vii. The Will did not see the light of the day for long. viii. Incorrect recitals of essential facts.” 13. The learned trial court on careful assessment of the statement of the plaintiff witnesses came to a conclusion that the statement of plaintiff (PW- 1) is suspicious. The learned trial court also found contradictions in the statement of witnesses of plaintiff with regard to execution of the will dated 16.02.2001 (Ex-P/4). Sukhdev (PW-3) in his statement deposed that the testator was a little unwell mentally and was aged about 90-95 years old. He has also deposed that the before putting his signature the scribe has not read over the will to him. The learned trial court also held that the during the execution of will the testator was in fit state of health and mind is suspicious. The signature of the testator on will (Ex-P/4) is shaky and prima facie different for his earlier will dated 12.03.1997 (Ex-D-6). Hence execution of will (Ex-P/4) could not come out of the suspicious circumstances as narrated in case of Bharpur Singh (Supra). 14. From perusal of the Court and statement recorded by the parties, categorical finding recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Hence execution of will (Ex-P/4) could not come out of the suspicious circumstances as narrated in case of Bharpur Singh (Supra). 14. From perusal of the Court and statement recorded by the parties, categorical finding recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. The said finding was also affirmed by the learned first appellate Court holding that the appellant was not able to prove the execution of Will and the Will appears to be suspicious. In order to admit an appeal under Section 100 of CPC, there has to be a substantial question of law involved in the appeal even if only question of law is involved, it would not be sufficient for admission of appeal. A substantial question of law is that, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. Taking clue from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sir Chunilal (Supra) and Chandrabhan (Supra) and also after perusal of the documents and evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to evidence which would involve any substantial question of law in this appeal. 15. Ex consequenti appeal fails and dismissed. Decree be drawn. No order to cost.