JUDGMENT : 1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the appellants – original applicants by challenging the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2010 passed below Exh.139 in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 2002 by the learned 3rd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar as well as the judgment dated 15.09.2011 passed below Exh.25 & 26 in Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Sabarkantha, whereby the same were dismissed by both the courts below. 2. The present Second Appeal was filed in the year 2012 and is currently pending for admission. No further orders have been passed since 2012, which is a highly concerning aspect of this matter. It clearly indicates the need for improvement in the system of the Registry for listing cases. Upon perusal the proceedings of this case, it is revealed that it was initially filed on 07.09.2012 and subsequently listed before the learned Court on 26.09.2012, which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. However, by order dated 7.11.2012 in Misc. Civil Application No.3044 of 2012 for restoration, the Court restored the matter by allowing that application. Despite this, it appears that the matter was never brought before the Court again until 07.01.2020, when it was finally listed again. Throughout the year 2020, the matter was scheduled for several occasions, but unfortunately, no progress was made. For reasons best known to the Registry, the matter wen to cut off, until it was eventually brought back before this Court. Consequently, the matter is now being taken up for consideration. 3. Heard Mrs. Nisha M. Parikh, learned advocate for the appellants. No notice is yet issued in the present matter. 4. Brief facts of the case are as such that there is a land bearing Survey No.23 admeasuring 28066 sq.mtrs. at village Motipura, Ta.Himmatnagar. That there are number of plots carved from the Revenue Survey No.23. The Applicant No.1 has purchased the Plot No.8 from survey No.23 by way of registered sale deed dtd.24/1/2000 and the said sale deed registered at serial no.162 as the registered maintain by the Registrar. Similarly, applicant No.2 has also purchased the land admeasuring 102.90 sq.ft., which was the part of the Plot No.8 by way of registered sale deed on dtd. 24/1/2000 and the said sale deed registered at serial no.163 as registered maintain by the Registrar. Similarly, applicant No.2 has also purchased the land admeasuring 102.90 sq.ft., which was the part of the Plot No.8 by way of registered sale deed on dtd. 24/1/2000 and the said sale deed registered at serial no.163 as registered maintain by the Registrar. On the basis of the sale deed, the applicants have given the application to the Himmatnagar Nagarpalika to be muted their name in the record of the Nagarpalika. On the basis of their application, their name came to be muted in entry no.1129 on 23/5/2002. The applicants have put a cabins and he is doing business. The applicants have started to construct the common wall in the plot of their own ownership. The respondent no. 2 to 5 have raised the objection on it and made the representation to the respondent no.1 to remove the said wall and cabin. It is further the case of the applicants in this application that the said entry came to be disputed and RTS/Case No.2- 3/04 was filed before the Mamlatdar, Himmatnagar by the Respondent No.2. The Mamlatdar, Himmatnagar has passed the order on dtd.16/12/2004 to cancelled the entry no.1129. It is further the case of the applicants in this application that being aggrieved against the order dtd.16/12/2004, the present applicants have filled the RTS/Appeal/Das/SR45/2006 before Himmatnagar on 21.7.2006. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Deputy Collector, Himmatnagar has passed the order on 21.8.2006 to allow the appeal of the applicants and confirmed the entry No.1129. The Deputy Collector, Himmatnagar has also stated that order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in SCA No.11646/2006 and 11647/2006 is bound to both the parties. The applicants have approached before this Court by way of SCA No.11646/2006 and SCA No.11647/2006 against the removal of the cabins of the applicants by the Nagarpalika. This Court has passed the order on dtd.17/1/2007, withdraw with liberty to file writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Ss per the direction of this Court, the applicants have filed the SCA No.19681/2007 and 19682/2007 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. In the said application, the learned Single Judge has passed the order dtd.18/9/2007, granted the permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach before the appropriate forum. It is further the case of the applicants in this application that the applicants have also filed the RCS No.20/2002 before the Civil Judge, Himmatnagar. In the said application, the learned Single Judge has passed the order dtd.18/9/2007, granted the permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach before the appropriate forum. It is further the case of the applicants in this application that the applicants have also filed the RCS No.20/2002 before the Civil Judge, Himmatnagar. The Civil Court, Himmatnagar has dismissed the applicant's suit on 30/7/2010 by considering the facts that the applicants are not the owner of the suit property and not able to prove possession over the suit property. Being aggrieved by the order dtd.21/8/2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, Himmatnagar, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are approached the Collector, Sabarkantha by way of RTS/Revision/Case No.5/2007. The Collector, Sabarkantha has without considering the facts and grounds of the applicants, allowed the said application on dtd.20/12/2010 by stating that civil suit field by the applicant was not allowed which is illegal and against the provisions of law. Against the said order the applicants have field the regular civil apple no.28/10 before the district court, which was rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, Sabarkantha Himmatnagar dtd 15-09-2011. Therefore, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dtd.15.09.2011 below Ex. 25 passed by the Ld. Principal District Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.28/2010, the present appeal is preferred. 5. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the courts below have wrongly considered the fact that the appellants are not the owners of the suit property and failed to prove the possession over the suit property. Furthermore, she has submitted that the learned Judge has not exercised their jurisdiction in appropriate manner, which is vested in them by the provisions of law. Furthermore, she has submitted that appellant is a owner of the o-1 Guntha Land, in Block No.111 situate at village Satem, Ta. Navsari, Dist. Valsad, while she has an adverse possession over the remaining land of the said block from the decade. Furthermore, she has submitted that the land bearing block No.110 belonging to Nathubhai is situated at Northern side of Block No.111 and land bearing survey No.112 belonging to Jivanbhai is situated on South-West side of Block No.111. The public way is available on Eastern side of block No.111. Furthermore, she has submitted that there is a depute regarding removal of the obstruction on the public way. The public way is available on Eastern side of block No.111. Furthermore, she has submitted that there is a depute regarding removal of the obstruction on the public way. Furthermore, she has submitted that the impugned order is against the settled position of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances as well as evidence on record. Furthermore, she has submitted that the appellants cannot be considered as a trace passer as she is having the adverse possession from 50-60 years, and not making any obstruction in the public way. Therefore, looking to over all circumstances, the appellants pray is entitled to get the relief as prayed in the suit. Therefore, she has prayed that in view of the substantial question of law, which is framed in paragraph 5 of the appeal memo, the present Second Appeal is required to be allowed. 6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar by the respective parties. The substantial question of law as framed in paragraph 5 are as under: (a) Whether the appellant is the legal owner of the suit property and actual the possession of the suit property? (b) Whether the appellant proves that the suit is barred by miss-joinder and non-joinder of parties? (c) Whether the appellant proves that the suit is barred for not giving statutory notice? 6.2 In view of the submissions made at the bar that the appellants have tried to urged the point regarding miss-joinder and non-joinder of the parties, whether the suit is barred or not, giving the statutory notice as well as also regarding the actual ownership of the property in question. For considering these aspects, I have perused the impugned judgment, which is rendered by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar. The learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar has considered the documentary evidences as well as oral evidences in paragraph 19 to 21 in its judgment, as under: (19) The plaintiffs have adduced the following oral and documentary evidences to prove the facts stated in the plaint. Sr.No. Subject Exhibit 1. Affidavit on oath of Bhavarlal Ganeshji Exh. 38 38 2. Affidavit on oath of Soni Hasmikhbhai Chimanbhai 72 3. Certified copy of order passed in RTS 45/06 59 4. True copy of sale deed dated 04/0/87 52 5. True copy of sale deed No. 1018 dated 04/06/87 53 6. Sr.No. Subject Exhibit 1. Affidavit on oath of Bhavarlal Ganeshji Exh. 38 38 2. Affidavit on oath of Soni Hasmikhbhai Chimanbhai 72 3. Certified copy of order passed in RTS 45/06 59 4. True copy of sale deed dated 04/0/87 52 5. True copy of sale deed No. 1018 dated 04/06/87 53 6. True copy of registered sale deed No. 162 dated 24/01/1960 54 7. True copy of sale deed executed on 24/01/1960 55 8. "Akani Patra" (2001 to 2003) 56 9. True copy of "Akarni Patra" (2003-2004) 57 10. Closing purses 75 (20) The defendant no. 1 has produced the following oral and documentary evidences to rebut the case of plaintiffs. Sr.No. Subject Exhibit 1. Affidavit on oath by Sanjaykumar Manubhai Pandya 80 2. Certified copy of N. A. order dated 15 /09/1978 83 3. True copy of NA plan 84 4. Village form No. 8A of plot no. 6, 7 and 8 86 5. Village form 7/12 of plot no. 7 87 6. Village form 7/12 of plot no. 8 88 7. Village form no. 6 showing entry nos. 334, 554, 456 and 506 89 8. N. A. order dated 08-/09/1994 90 9. Village form no.6 showing entry nos. 1019 and 1020 91 10. Village form no.6 showing entry nos. 1024 and 1025 92 11. Resolution No. 19(1) dated 13/6/2000 93 12. Resolution passed by Ayojan Samiti bearing no. 19(1) and 30 94 13. Letter of intimation sent to plaintiffs dated 29/06/2000 95 14. Office copy of intimation sent to plaintiffs dated 30/8/2000 96 15. Resolution No. 643 dated 02/07/2001 passed by Managing committee of N. P. 97 16. Intimation letter dated 30/7/20001 98 17. Akarani Patrak for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2004 of property bearing no. 12/1326 99 18. Office copy of notice given to plaintiffs 100 19. Order passed by Hon'ble High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 11646/07 and 11647/07 101 (21) The defendant nos 2 to 5 have produced the following oral and documentary evidences. Sr.No. Subject Exhibit 1. Affidavit on oath of Patel Vijubhai Khimjibhai 107 2. Affidavit on oath Patel Natubhai Kanjibhai 110 3. Amended document dated 30/03/2000 113 4. Order passed by Hon'ble High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 11646/07 and 11647/07 101 (21) The defendant nos 2 to 5 have produced the following oral and documentary evidences. Sr.No. Subject Exhibit 1. Affidavit on oath of Patel Vijubhai Khimjibhai 107 2. Affidavit on oath Patel Natubhai Kanjibhai 110 3. Amended document dated 30/03/2000 113 4. Closing purses 105 & 115 6.3 Thereafter, the trial court has farmed the issues and decided the same as mentioned in paragraph 22 & 23 of the memo of the appeal, as under: (22) My Learned Predecessor Judge has framed following issues vide Exh. 31 which are re-produced herein below. ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have legally owner of the suit property? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that they have actually possession of the suit property? 3. Whether the defendants prove that suit is barred by mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? 4. Whether the defendant no.1 prove that suit is barred for not giving statutory notice? 5. Whether the defendants prove that plaintiffs have no right to file such suit? 6. Whether plaintiffs entitle to get the relief as prayed? 7. What order and decree ? (23) My replies to the above issues are as under: - (1) In negative (2) In negative (3) In affirmative (4) In affirmative (5) In affirmative (6) In negative (7) As per final order 6.4 In light of this background, it is imperative to consider the findings given by the trial court when deciding such issues. The appellants' contention, as the original applicants, is that the suit primarily seeks declaration and injunction as prayed. It is crucial to examine the defendants' case in response, as presented through their written statements. Defendant No.1 has submitted a comprehensive written statement at Exh.22, contending that the plaintiffs lack the legal standing to bring the suit. They have further contested the ownership claimed by the plaintiffs and have disputed the boundaries delineated in the plaint. It is crucial to examine the defendants' case in response, as presented through their written statements. Defendant No.1 has submitted a comprehensive written statement at Exh.22, contending that the plaintiffs lack the legal standing to bring the suit. They have further contested the ownership claimed by the plaintiffs and have disputed the boundaries delineated in the plaint. It is also contended that initially the name of the plaintiffs were entered into the record maintained by defendant no.1 and that names of plaintiffs, entered in record, was maintained by them on the basis of Pencil entry made by village accountant, but subsequent to entering the names of plaintiffs on the basis of Pencil entry, defendant no.1 asked for certified entry from village accountant by way of written communication and Talati has intimated the defendant no.1 that entry Nos.1024 and 1025 were cancelled as plaintiffs have produced amendment sale deed, whereby, they have purchased plot No.16/A instead of plot No.8. Upon defendant No.1 receiving the letter from Talati stating out the above mentioned facts. The defendant no.1 by way of general Resolution No. 643 dated 02/07/2001 cancelled the entry by which the names of plaintiffs were mutated in the record maintained by defendant no.1. It is also contended in the written statement that plaintiffs herein had sought permission of Nagarpalika to carry out the construction, but permission was never granted as a road was existing on the site, and without obtaining permission, the plaintiffs had carried out some construction which was removed. It is contended that the permission sought by plaintiffs herein pursuant to the said premises, was refused by Resolution No. 19(1) dated 13.06.2000, and the fact regarding refusal of construction permission was also communicated by letter bearing outward No.1025. It is further contended that the plaintiffs herein have no title over the land on which the road passes, but with a view to create title, plaintiffs have filed the Suit by suppressing material facts. It also transpires that considering these last aspects, the suit of the plaintiff and averments made in the pliant as well as written statement made by the defendant, the trial court has decided the issues and has rightly come to the conclusion by appropriating oral as well as documentary evidence. It also transpires that considering these last aspects, the suit of the plaintiff and averments made in the pliant as well as written statement made by the defendant, the trial court has decided the issues and has rightly come to the conclusion by appropriating oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial court has after considering the deposition as well as cross-examination of the various witnesses, like Hasmukhlal Chimanlal Soni and plaintiff himself had come to the conclusion that the sellers in sale deeds which are on record vide Exh. 52 & 53 did not have any right or title to alienate the property which was subject matter of sale deeds on record vide Exh. 54 and 55 and, therefore, the Court has found that since Soni Hasmukhlal Chimanlal had no title or right to convey the property, which was subject matter of sale deeds vide Exh. 54 and 55, no title was conveyed to plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 by way of registered sale deed and, therefore, plaintiff has not been able to prove his legal ownership over the suit property. The trial court has also found the proceeding of RTS Appeal No.45 of 2006, which indicates the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. But the plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination that the cabin installed on suit land has been removed. Considering the same admission on behalf of the plaintiff, though it transpires that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land once upon a time, but subsequently, he was removed from the possession of the suit property and now he is not in possession of the suit property, as there is existing road on the suit land and the cabin has also been removed. 6.5 Therefore, the trial court has also found that the suit, which is filed by the plaintiff, is raised for non-issuance of statutory notice to Nagarpalika. The trial court has also found that the plaintiffs have miserably failed in establishing ownership on the suit property. It is settled law that one does not convey a better title then what he has and when one has no title, none is conveyed. It is observed that the plaintiffs have made a feeble attempt to establish the legality of their ownership by examining Hasmukhbhai Chimanbhai. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that sale deeds which are on record vide Exh. It is observed that the plaintiffs have made a feeble attempt to establish the legality of their ownership by examining Hasmukhbhai Chimanbhai. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that sale deeds which are on record vide Exh. 53 and 52 by which he had purchased suit property which wan executed in the year 1987 and he had also admitted that sale deed on record vide Exh. 52 shows the name of Aminabibi as seller and sale deed vide Exh. 53 shows the name of Chhaganlal Bechardas Darji as seller. Thus, the person from whom he had purchased suit property did not have title over suit property and could not have sold the suit property and, therefore, the trial court has dismissed the suit. It also transpires that the appellate court has also considered the relevant aspects of the matter and has framed the four points for determination in paragraph 12, and findings are also indicated in paragraph 13, which are as under: 12. Heard learned Advocate Ms. K.R. Soni for the He 8/22 respondent-defendant No.1 and Advocate Mr. R.C. Joshi for respondent-defendant Nos.2 to 5. produced his written argument, which is at Exh.24. The points raised for consideration of this Court are as under: POINTS 1. Whether the appellants prove that the Trial Court has erred in plaintiffs have not deciding been that successful the in proving that they are the legal owners and in actual possession of the suit property? 2. Whether the appellants prove that the Trial Court has erred in deciding that the suit is barred by mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties? 3. Whether the appellants prove that the Trial Court has erred in deciding that the suit is barred for not giving statutory notice and that the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit. 4. What order? 13. My findings on the above points are as under for the reasons following thereafter: FINDINGS 1. In negative. 2. In negative. 3. In negative. 4. As per final order. 6.6.1 On perusal of the order of the lower appellate court, it transpires that the lower Appellate Court has once again perused the entire material available on record and re-appreciated the evidence in detail as an appellate court and has observed in paragraph 24, as under: 24. In negative. 2. In negative. 3. In negative. 4. As per final order. 6.6.1 On perusal of the order of the lower appellate court, it transpires that the lower Appellate Court has once again perused the entire material available on record and re-appreciated the evidence in detail as an appellate court and has observed in paragraph 24, as under: 24. The plaintiffs have produced the attested copy of the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Himatnagar in RTS Appeal No.45/2006 at Exh.59 to support their claim of their possession on the suit land. The documentary evidence along with the oral deposition of the witnesses clearly show that the plaintiffs have no legal right, title, interests on the suit property. It has been stated by the Chief Officer plaintiff in his had examination-in-chief asked for the that permission the of construction by producing the correction deed No.162 stating plot No.8 to be read as plot No.16-A and on local inspection, it was found that at the suit place Nagarpalika had already made a metal road and the place for which the permission was sought for was a part of the road. Bence, the cabin and the shed made of metal was removed on 12.06.2000. It has been held by this Court in case of Vitthalbhai Chhaganbhai (since deceased) through his legal representative Navnitbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2008 (4) GLR 3522 , that Section 185, Sub Section 2 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963, empowers the Chief Officer of the Municipality to remove obstruction made on Municipal land, whether the obstruction was made before or after the application of the Act to the term in question. The said road appears to have been used by the public since long. The Nagarpalika had made metal road. It appears to have been dedicated to the public. Hence, the contention of the advocate . . Patel that the ?.?. Patel that the ?.?. Patel that the Nagarpalika has not followed the procedure laid down under Section 69 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 would not be tenable and as observed by the Hon'ble High Court in Vitthalbhai Chhaganbhai's case (supra) the Chief Officer, is empowered to remove the obstructions made on the Municipal Land. Hence, in view of the above discussion, point No.1 is answered in negative. Hence, in view of the above discussion, point No.1 is answered in negative. 6.6.2 Thereafter, on point No.2 in its judgment, it is observed in paragraph 25 by the trial court, as under: 25. The contention of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 with regard to non-joinder of parties was with respect to not joining one of the co-owners Moksingh Bhikusing Parmar of the shop owned by defendant Nos. 2 to 5. It appears from the dispute between the parties that Moksingh Bhikusing Parmar is one of the proper parties to be joined to the suit. The learned Advocate had put some questions in cross examination with respect to the ownership of plot No.8, the original owner Rasikbhai Ravjibhai Patel had sold the plot No.7 and 8 to Dilipkumar Nalinkant Gandhi, Jagdishchandra Harishchandra Choksi, Shrichand Dwarkadas Talreja, Ishwarlal Ganpatlal Patel and Dwarkesh Complex has been constructed by them. They are the necessary and proper parties to the suit. The plaintiff ought to have joined them. The village form No.6 with Entry No.506 clearly shows them, as the owner of plot No.8, more so it has come on record during the evidence of the Chief Officer that they had made construction on the plot of Dwarkesh Complex. They were the proper and necessary party. They were required to be heard for the adjudication of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly observed that the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. Hence, point No.2 is answered in negative. 6.6.3 On point no.3, the trial court has observed in paragraph 26, as under: 26. Advocate . . Patel has contended statutory notice ?.?. Patel has contended statutory notice ?.?. Patel has contended statutory notice was required to be that issued no to defendant No.1 prior to filing the suit against them, as the rights of the plaintiffs were infringed by the defendant. The Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has admitted in the cross examination that no statutory notice was issued by them to the Municipality before instituting the suit. It appears from the evidence on record that the suit was filed on 22.01.2002 and the cabin was removed by the Chief Officer, on 12.06.2000, the fact regarding the date of removal has not been challenged in the crossexamination. It appears from the evidence on record that the suit was filed on 22.01.2002 and the cabin was removed by the Chief Officer, on 12.06.2000, the fact regarding the date of removal has not been challenged in the crossexamination. The plaintiff had come with the cause of action that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 through defendant No.1 were creating hindrance in their construction of the compound wall. As per the evidence of the Chief Officer, no permission was given to the plaintiffs for the construction of the compound wall. In view of the fact, the suit filed without issuing statutory notice to the Nagarpalika is bad in law. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly observed that the suit is barred for not giving statutory notice. The plaintiffs have failed to show their legal right, title, interests on the suit property. They have not bonafidely purchased the suit land. The claim put forward is for the margin land of the plot belonging to Dilipkumar Nalinkant Gandhi, Jagdishchandra Harishchandra Choksi, Shrichand Dwarkadas Talreja, Ishwarlal Ganpatlal Patel and therefore, the observation of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit is upheld. Hence, point No.3 is answered in negative. 6.7 After considering the above findings, both the courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons. While exercising powers under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has to keep in mind the certain aspect. 6.8 Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as under: 100. Second appeal.--(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. STATE AMENDMENT Kerala. In sub-section (1) of section 100 of the Principal Act, after clause (c), the following clause shall be added, namely: (d) the finding of the lower appellate court on any question of fact material to the right decision of the case on the merits being in conflict with the finding of the Court of first instance on such question. 6.9 It is relevant to refer some of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, regarding exercising of powers under Section 100 of the C.P.C., in the case of Narayana Gramani and Others versus Mariammal and Others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1427, the relevant observations in para 17 reads as under: “Subsection (1) of Section 100 says that the second appeal would be entertained by the High Court only if the High Court is "satisfied" that the case involves a "substantial question of law". Sub section (3) makes it obligatory upon the appellant to precisely state in memo of appeal the "substantial question of law" involved in the appeal. Subsection (4) provides that where the High Court is satisfied that any substantial question of law is involved in the case, it shall formulate that question. In other words, once the High Court is satisfied after hearing the appellant or his counsel, as the case may be, that the appeal involves a substantial question of law, it has to formulate that question and then direct issuance of notice to the respondent of the memo of appeal along with the question of law framed by the High Court. Subsection (5) provides that the appeal shall be heard only on the question formulated by the High Court under subsection (4). In other words, the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the second appeal is confined only to the question framed by the High Court under subsection(4). The respondent, however, at the time of hearing of the appeal is given a right under subsection (5) to raise an objection that the question framed by the High Court under subsection (4) does not involve in the appeal. The reason for giving this right to the respondent for raising such objection at the time of hearing is because the High Court frames the question at the admission stage which is prior to issuance of the notice of appeal to the respondent. In other words, the question is framed behind the back of respondent and, therefore, sub section(5) enables him to raise such objection at the time of hearing that the question framed does not arise in the appeal. The proviso to subsection (5), however, also recognizes the power of the High Court to hear the appeal on any other substantial question of law which was not initially framed by the High Court under sub section (4). However, this power can be exercised by the High Court only after assigning the reasons for framing such additional question of law at the time of hearing of the appeal. (See Sanatosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari [ (2001) 3 SCC 179 ] and Surat Singh vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. [ (2018) 4 SCC 562 ” 6.10 In light of the above considerations, and examining the specifics of the case at hand, I am of the view that both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their legal ownership despite presenting oral evidence and documentary evidence, except the sale deed, which is thereafter clarified by the courts below by interpreting those documents that when the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs are not having any right of ownership from that very document, the plaintiffs cannot get better title than that of regarding the suit property. Furthermore, as the suit property is being the public nature of the property in question, the findings given by the courts below while deciding the issues framed by the trial court and the points of determination set forth by the Lower Appellate Court, align with legal principles. Hence, I am of the opinion that there appears to be no error in the consideration of documents and oral evidence, nor in the determination that no substantial question is raised in this appeal. Therefore, it is my opinion that this Second Appeal lacks merit and is required to be dismissed. 6.11 Accordingly, the present Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.