ORDER : 1. Advocate Mr. H.P. Baxi for the appellants, who were the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 2011, contends that on dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2019, which came to be allowed on 29.09.2023, and when there is no concurrent finding of both the courts, then Second Appeal is required to be admitted, since the very cause of two contrary observations would raise a substantial question of law and facts. 2. Advocate Mr. Baxi submitted that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants, and further stated that plaintiff had no right to file the suit as a Manager of Hindu undivided family, since he is a single male member. Mr. Baxi further stated that the sale deed on which reliance had been placed, was not produced before the trial Court and only a photocopy came to be exhibited; thus, stated that the attestation and execution of the original was required to be proved, and when original sale deed is not on record, the same cannot be believed. Advocate Mr. Baxi further submitted that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff does not suggest that the possession of the suit land followed the title, as claimed by the plaintiff. 3. Advocate Mr. Baxi stated that revenue entries have no prima facie value and, if at all, the family arrangement, which is relied upon, is to be considered, then it requires compulsory registration, which has not been so in the present matter. The core issues have not been decided by the appellate Court and the reasoned order of the trial Court has been set aside, and the facts, which were not recorded, have been considered. 4. Advocate Mr. Baxi has relied upon the following judgments: (i) in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Shiv Dayal & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.7363 of 2000 (ii) Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 (iii) Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4321 (iv) K.N. Nagarajappa & Ors. Vs. H.Narasimha Reddy (v) Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Bisaram And Ors. (vi) John Mithalal Desai Vs. Dineshbhai K.vora, reported in LAWS (GJH) 1997 (8) 14 (vii) Ramji Daywala And Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Invest Import, reported in LAWS (SC) 1980 (10) 23 (viii) Dina Ji Vs. Vs. H.Narasimha Reddy (v) Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Bisaram And Ors. (vi) John Mithalal Desai Vs. Dineshbhai K.vora, reported in LAWS (GJH) 1997 (8) 14 (vii) Ramji Daywala And Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Invest Import, reported in LAWS (SC) 1980 (10) 23 (viii) Dina Ji Vs. Daddi, reported in LAWS (SC) 1989 (11) 1 (ix) Union of India And Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, reported in LAWS (SC) 2018 76 (x) Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Vs. Rupdevsinhji Dolatsinhji Gohil, reported in LAWS (GJH) 2021 (1) 52 (xi) Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Vs. Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel And Ors., reported in LAWS (GJH) 2018 (9) 20, to contend that this Court is required to frame substantial questions of law prima facie on the ground of contrary judgments of both the courts. 5. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi submitted that the case of the defendants is not on the ground that sale deed has not been executed, while the dispute is raised regarding the documents, which has been produced in the form of certified copy. Advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the deposition during the course of the trial requires consideration, since when the plaintiff had stepped into the witness box, he had brought the originals before the Court, and such fact has been noted in the trial proceedings, and on observing so the certified copy was put in evidence at Exh.45. 5.1 Advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the knowledge of execution of sale deed had not for the very first time known to the defendants, since earlier in proceedings under section 73AA(3) in case before the Deputy Collector as 128/95 and 132/95, the Deputy Collector, L&D, Vyara at Surat in his judgment has recorded about the sale deed dated 13.04.1978. Mr. Gandhi further submitted that one of the vendor Manuben i.e. widow of Babubhai Govindbhai has admitted by way of deposition of the property sold to the father of the plaintiff. Mr. Gandhi submitted that the provisions of section 73AA of the Gujarat Land revenue Code, 1879 came into force on 01.02.1981, and, therefore the Deputy Collector by order dated 25.07.1995 had considered this development of law, and had found that the sale was not hit by the provision of section 73AA, and, therefore the notice was withdraw and the proceedings were dropped. Hence, Advocate Mr. Hence, Advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that by the order dated 25.07.1995 of the Deputy Collector, the factum of sale deed was approved, and it was found to be legal. 5.2 Advocate Mr. Gandhi further submitted that since the proceedings were dropped, no subsequent entry could be passed in the revenue record; however, stated that title would always follow from the sale deed, and, since the sale deed is legal and valid, and by way of the sale deed the possession was handed over to the plaintiff, which has been referred in the sale deed itself, no dispute can be raised, and further there is an admitted evidence of one of the vendor of the sale deed of handing over the possession. 6. In case of Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4321 , the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the provision of section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appreciating the existence of substantial question of law sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 of CPC. The Apex Court had laid down that the High Court should be satisfied, that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law; further held that a question of law having a material bearing on decision of case (that is, a question, answer to which affect the right of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specified provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue. The Apex Court has further held that 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 Court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle, and in the second type of cases, 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. 6.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the referred judgment held that general rule is, that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, but it not an absolute rule, some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof; further held that a decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding. 7. The suit, which was filed by the plaintiff as a ‘Karta’ of Hindu undivided family against three of the defendants, wherein one defendant is the vendor of the sale deed dated 13.04.1978. The sale deed was produced on record at Exh.45. Advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the trial Court failed to distinguish that the certified copy produced was one, which was registered before the sub-registrar as Registration No.325 of sub-registrar, Vyara. 7.1 Having referred to the observation of the trial Court, the appellate Court has considered the document at Exh.45 as valid in view of the fact that during the course of evidence, the original sale deed was in the hands of the plaintiff as a witness, and the document was certified by Notary from the original. Considering the Notary Act, which gives the power to a Notary to certify a document, the learned appellate Court after having considered the provision of section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, observed the same to be public document and certified before a Notary, has considered that the same can be read in evidence in view of the provision of sections 63 and 65(e) of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the dispute of the defendants does not stand valid. Over and above the fact, the proceeding before the Deputy Collector in case No.Jaman/73AA (3) 125/95 132/95, Fathesinhbhai Gamit, the father of the plaintiff was shown as a ‘Kabjedar’ that means in possession of the property, where the proceeding was initiated observing that the sale deed would not be valid considered it to be a restricted sale under section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. But the learned Deputy Collector having considered the provision of law and the change entry in the revenue records, had not found the same to be hit by the provision of section 73AA by observing in the operative order that the sale deed was registered prior to the provision of section 73AA, hence, the notice was withdrawn and the proceedings were closed. 7.2 The name of Manuben widow of Babubhai Govindbhai Gamit was in the revenue record, and the sale deed which has been executed in favour of Fatehsingh Samantbhai Gamit, father of the plaintiff, was by (1) Manuben widow of Babubhai Govindbhai Gamit, (2) Ramuben Babubhai Gamit, (3) Padmaben Babubhai Gamit, (3) Vinuben Babubhai Gamit and (4) Manuben Babubhai Gamit as the guardian of Faluben Babubhai and Fulsinh Babhubhai. The recital in the sale deed itself suggests that the possession was handed over to the father of the plaintiff. The revenue entry at the relevant time was passed noting the name of father, Fatehsingh Gamit, but since the proceedings came to be initiated considering to be restricted land, the name of father got vacated; however, it appears that further proceedings for entering the name of the plaintiff was not initiated and the bracket was required to be removed; however, the fact remains that title was passed by the sale deed, since there was no restrictions on the sale. 7.3 The plaintiff had filed the suit referring to the sale deed, and also stating that his family from the year 1978 was taking the produce of the land, and the Entry Nos. 816, 927 and 1070 were recorded, but because of the consolidation proceeding the Entry Nos.816 and 927 were cancelled. The defence was raised by the defendants of the Entry No.694 for partition, and also of the case of delay and latches and nonjoinder of parties. Further, the trial Court had also raised an issue to consider as to whether the sale deed in favour of the father was false, bogus and got up. The trial Court answered issue nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 in negative, and also answered issue no.5 in negative, wherein the burden was on the defendants; while issue nos.6 and 7 were answered in affirmative. The trial Court answered issue nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 in negative, and also answered issue no.5 in negative, wherein the burden was on the defendants; while issue nos.6 and 7 were answered in affirmative. It requires to be noted that the plea of defendants that the sale deed in favour of the father of the plaintiff urged to be false, bogus and forged, was answered in negative. Hence, the defendants could not prove before the trial Court, of the sale deed, to be false, bogus and forged. 7.4 The appellate Court while considering all the issues raised by the trial Court at Exh.33, has dealt with the arguments and judgments relied upon to consider whether the trial Court judgment was erroneous, and whether the interference of the appellate Court was necessary. Answering the point of determination in affirmative, the appellate Court has referred to the sale deed dated 13.04.1978, and has also referred to the cross examination considering the title of the plaintiff in accordance to the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The document, Exh.45 being notarized, which is considered to be a legal document, observing the fact that the original was brought before the Court, and, thereafter the notarized true copy was produced on record. 7.5 The fact of the sale deed was known to the defendants, since the proceeding before the Deputy Collector under Case No.128/1995 and 132/1995 was between Manuben Widow of Babubhai Govindbhai Gamit and others. Manuben had affirmed the possession being handed over. The document being sale deed also refers regarding possession of the property handed over to the purchaser. 7.6 The plea was raised by the plaintiff before the trial Court that it was because of the consolidation proceeding Entry Nos.816 and 927 came to be cancelled. The plea raised, was not considered by the trial Court and the issue was answered in negative; however, the appellate Court, having referred to the proceeding before the Deputy Collector and considering the position of law that section 73AA came in force on 01.02.1981, and on the observation of Deputy Collector that the sale deed is not barred by the provision of law, has believed the proceedings and the opinion expressed under section 51 of the Evidence Act of the quasi judicial authority. The appellate Court has rightly expressed that it was very strange of the trial Court not believing the opinion expressed by the authority, and thereafter the appellate Court views with regard to Entry No.927. Entry No.816 drawn on 29.07.1979, bears the observation of the notice being served to the original land owner on 15.07.1980, and the same entry also reflects the fact that because of the consolidation proceeding, it was cancelled. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for Entry No.927 on the basis of the sale deed, which also came to be cancelled with an endorsement of ‘land consolidation proceedings’; thus, the appellate Court has rightly observed that both the entries being Entry No.816 and Entry No.927 were not certified because of the consolidation proceedings. 8. The plaintiff holds the land on the basis of the sale deed. The Deputy Collector has opined that it was not barred by the provision of section 73AA of the Gujarat Tenancy Act, since the sale deed was prior to the section coming into force; further the possession of the land being handed over to the plaintiff’s father was admitted by Manuben widow of Babubhai Govindbhai Gamit. Defendant no.1 is also one of the signatory as a vendor to the suit property. She had the knowledge of execution and registration of the sale deed before the sub-registrar, Vyara. The sale deed was not challenged within limitation period of three years, if at all, they had any objection to the title or execution. Further, the suit of the plaintiff as ‘Karta’ of the HUF would be maintainable, as he has his mother in the family, and the land would have been considered as HUF property after the death of the father. The suit also cannot be considered as barred by limitation, since the defendants had raised a dispute, which became the cause. 9. In view of the same, this Court does not find any reason to set aside the observations of the appellate Court having found that the observations of the trial Court were erroneous and not in accordance to the provisions of law. This Court has not found any material to raise any substantial questions of law, as being an owner of the property, by virtue of the sale deed, the plaintiff has a right to protect the same. This Court has not found any material to raise any substantial questions of law, as being an owner of the property, by virtue of the sale deed, the plaintiff has a right to protect the same. This Court does not find any reason to show any indulgence in the Second Appeal, hence, the same stands rejected.