JUDGMENT : BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Having regard to the similitude of controversy involved, commonality of disputed lands and parties, these second appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Appellant State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Bhagwan Bahubali Digamber Trust (For short hereinafter will referred as ‘Trust’) have filed these appeals against the Judgment and Decree dated 16-10-2019 passed by the Learned XXVIIth Additional District Judge Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 240/2017, whereby the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the Civil suit No 109-A/2016 (Earlier No 114-A/1986) filed by the Respondent No.1 Shri Gandhi Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha (for short hereinafter will be referred as ‘Society’) was reversed and suit filed by the Society was Decreed. 3. Facts in brief as having emerged from pleadings of the parties are that the Plaintiff/Respondent Society is a Co-operative housing society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative societies Act, 1960, filed Civil suit No 114-A/1986 on 26-08-1986 for the relief of declaration of their title, possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction in respect of suit land against the present appellants and respondent No.4. As per the plaint, the plaintiff society was given 441.61 acres of land on a special patta Exb.P-2 dated 25-04-1949 by the erstwhile Madhya Bharat Government and possession of the land in question was also handed over to the society on 01-05-1949 vide possession delivery receipt Exb. P-3. 4. Further allegations are that the present appellant State on 23-02-1984 served a notice on the Society directing the society and its members to stop the construction activities and also not to develop colony. Further allegations are that the State of Madhya Pradesh has also encroached upon certain lands of the society and has also granted lease of some part of the land to defendant no.4 i.e. present respondent no.2 in the appeal by the State of M.P. which Constrained the Society to file the Suit. 5. The present appellants filed their Written Statement and admitted the execution of Special Patta in favour of the Plaintiff society but averred that except 25 Acres of land, rest of the land was taken back by the Government by certain orders passed from time to time. All other allegations of the plaint were also denied by the present appellant State. 6. All other allegations of the plaint were also denied by the present appellant State. 6. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the suit filed by the respondent society was decreed in first round of litigation vide Judgment and Decree dated 25-02-1992 against which present appellants preferred First Appeal No. 6/1992 and which was also dismissed by the Vth Additional District Judge Indore vide Judgment and Decree dated 12-04-1996. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, the appellants filed a Second Appeal No. 507/1998 before the High Court. During pendency of the said Second Appeal, appellants filed an application under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (For brevity herein after will be referred as ‘CPC’) for taking certain documents on record. 7. Vide Judgment and Decree dated 23-09-2010 said application along with the second appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court to decide all the issues afresh after taking those documents on record. This court while allowing the appeal had also directed the Plaintiff society to comply with certain directions. 8. After remand of the case both the parties to the suit amended their pleadings and again evidence was recorded by the Trial Court and vide judgment and decree dated 27-09-2017 the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same the Society preferred First Appeal No. 240/2017 before XXVIIth Additional District Judge Indore which was allowed vide impugned Judgment and Decree dated 19-10-2019. Against said Judgment and Decree the present second appeal has been filed by the appellants. 9. Heard Shri Anand Soni, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants State of M.P. and Ors. on the question of admission. Following grounds for admitting appeal filed on behalf of the State of M.P. and others have been raised by Shri Soni learned AAG. 10. First and foremost contention raised is that first appellate court has erred in allowing the appeal without complying with the directions issued by this court while remanding the case to Trial Court in Second Appeal No. 507/1998. 11. Next contention is that the plaintiff society was not in possession of the suit land and therefore the suit itself was not maintainable. 11. Next contention is that the plaintiff society was not in possession of the suit land and therefore the suit itself was not maintainable. It was also argued that the possession of entire suit land except 25 Acres was already taken over on 13-12-1966 and to substantiate this argument he relied on annexure A-4 filed with the appeal memo. 12. Thirdly the counsel for the appellants heavily relied upon the Exhibit D-1 to D-4 and argued that by different letters the society had already surrendered the land in favour of the appellant State therefore the first appellate court erred in allowing the appeal. To bolster his submissions learned counsel for the appellants has place reliance on para 15 of the judgment by the Apex Court in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LRs. (2001) 3 SCC 179 which is extracted as under:- “15. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that it has extensively dealt with the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties for deciding the issues on which the parties went to trial. It also found that in support of his plea of adverse possession on the disputed land, the defendant did not produce any documentary evidence while the oral evidence adduced by the defendant was conflicting in nature and hence unworthy of reliance. The first appellate court has, in a very cryptic manner, reversed the finding on question of possession and dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff as also on the question of adverse possession as pleaded by the defendant. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. The task of an appellate court affirming the findings of the trial court is an easier one. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. The task of an appellate court affirming the findings of the trial court is an easier one. The appellate court agreeing with the view of the trial court need not restate the effect of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court, decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice (See Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary , AIR 1967 SC 1124 ). We would, however, like to sound a note of caution. Expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate court for shirking the duty cast on it. While writing a judgment of reversal the appellate court must remain conscious of two principles. Firstly, the findings of fact based on conflicting evidence arrived at by the trial court must weigh with the appellate court, more so when the findings are based on oral evidence recorded by the same Presiding Judge who authors the judgment. This certainly does not mean that when an appeal lies on facts, the appellate court is not competent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge. As a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence by the trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact. As a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence by the trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact. (See Madhusudan Das v. Narayanibai , (1983) 1 SCC 35 : AIR 1983 SC 114 ) The rule is — and it is nothing more than a rule of practice — that when there is conflict of oral evidence of the parties on any matter in issue and the decision hinges upon the credibility of witnesses, then unless there is some special feature about the evidence of a particular witness which has escaped the trial Judge's notice or there is a sufficient balance of improbability to displace his opinion as to where the credibility lie, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of the trial Judge on a question of fact. (See Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh , 1950 SCC 714 : AIR 1951 SC 120 ) Secondly, while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it. We need only remind the first appellate courts of the additional obligation cast on them by the scheme of the present Section 100 substituted in the Code. The first appellate court continues, as before, to be a final court of facts; pure findings of fact remain immune from challenge before the High Court in second appeal. Now the first appellate court is also a final court of law in the sense that its decision on a question of law even if erroneous may not be vulnerable before the High Court in second appeal because the jurisdiction of the High Court has now ceased to be available to correct the errors of law or the erroneous findings of the first appellate court even on questions of law unless such question of law be a substantial one.” Learned counsel has further placed reliance on para 33 of the judgment by the Apex Court in Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs. and Others Vs. and Others Vs. Saraswati and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 which is reproduced for ready reference 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. (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.” 13. 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.” 13. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and perused the records of the Trial court as well as the First Appellate Court. It is an admitted position that the land in question was given on special patta Exhibit P-2 to the Society and it is also not in dispute that the possession of entire land was also handed over to the Society vide Exhibit P-3. 14. So far as the first contention of the counsel for the appellant is concerned, this court is not impressed as contention has force that the first Appellate court has decided the appeal without ensuring the compliance of the directions issued by this court in S.A. 507/1998 because from the record of the Trial Court it is manifest that the directions issued by this Court while remanding the matter have been complied with by the respondent/plaintiff Society and Trial Court proceeded in the suit only after said compliances were made. Even otherwise, no such objection was ever raised by the appellant State before the Trial Court as well as before the First Appellate Court, therefore same cannot be raised for the first time at this stage. 15. Similarly, the second contention of the appellants regarding taking over of possession of entire land except 25 acres vide letter dated 13-12-1966 is also devoid of substance as there is no such document available on record to show that the Society surrendered the entire land except 25 acres. The appellants have filed and relied upon a typed of a letter dated 13-12-1966 as Annexure A-4 but said document has no evidentiary value as the same was not proved by the appellants by producing and proving it as per law. It is also worth mention that Annexure A-4 dated 13-12-1966 is only a typed copy and does not bear even the signatures of any person and therefore the same cannot be looked into and relied upon. 16. So far as the third contention raised by the appellants that the land was surrendered by the respondent Society is concerned, is also sans merit. 16. So far as the third contention raised by the appellants that the land was surrendered by the respondent Society is concerned, is also sans merit. To prove that the land was surrendered by the Society, the appellants have relied upon three letters written by the Society which are Exhibit D-1 to D-3. Exb. D- 1 is a letter dated 29-12-1981, wherein it is stated that the the Society has already developed colony on 106 acres of land out of 441 acres and except for said 106 acres of land they are ready to surrender remaining land. By Exhibit D-2, which is a letter dated 06-06-2000, the Society has offered to surrender only 35 Acres of land on a condition that all the disputes be resolved. By exhibit D-3, which is a letter dated 31-01-2000, the society has offered to surrender 241 Acres of land and keeping 200 acres with them. 17. In the written statement filed by the appellants has been stated that State has taken over possession of entire land except 25 Acres of land under different orders passed by the Government. If that was so then society could not have developed colony on 106 acres of land in 1981 as stated in Exhibit D-1. similarly vide exhibit D-2 only 35 Acres of land was offered to be surrendered on 06-06-2000 and before that vide Exhibit D-3, 241 Acres was offered to be surrendered by the society which clearly shows that only offers were made by the society which were never accepted by the Appellants and at no point of time possession of the land was ever handed over by the society to the Appellant State. The appellants have also not filed any order under which the entire land except 25 Acres allegedly was taken back as pleaded by the appellants in their Written Statement. 18. The First Appellate court in the impugned Judgment and Decreefrom para 28 to para 36 has considered the Exhibit D-1 to D-4 in their true perspective and has rightly held that there is no document on record to show that the possession was ever taken by the State in acceptance of the offer of surrender made by the Society. The first appellate court was also right in holding that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the present appellants were self-contradictory and their existence at the same time was not possible. The first appellate court was also right in holding that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the present appellants were self-contradictory and their existence at the same time was not possible. In this regard on issue No 2 there is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that taking back possession of disputed lands is not proved. 19. The Trial court has failed to consider the evidence on record in its true perspective with regards to issue No4 to 8 as framed by it. The First appellate Court by cogent reasoning has reversed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and has rightly allowed the appeal and Decreed the Suit. Looking the aforesaid appeal by the State is without substance as not substantial question of law is found involved. 20. By way of Second Appeal No 3522/2019 the appellant Trust also has challenged the aforesaid impugned Judgment and Decree dated 16-10-2019 passed by the Learned XXVIIth Additional District Judge Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 240/2017. 21. Since appellant was not a party to the Suit or to the First Appeal therefore the present application IA no. 9573/2019 has also been filed for permission to prosecute the appeal. The present appeal was listed alongwith the Second Appeal No. 216/2020 filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the same Judgment and Decree which is impugned in this appeal. 22. The said Second Appeal No. 216/2020 filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh has not been found worth admission as mentioned hereinabove as no substantial question of law arise for the consideration by this Court. 23. The appellant trust had no independent rights in the land in question and the appellant trust is claiming through The State of Madhya Pradesh only. Even otherwise in previous round of litigation the Trust was given right of audience at the time of final hearing of Second Appeal No 507/1998 which was also filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Said appeal was allowed vide Judgment dated 23-07-2010 and matter was remanded back to Trial Court to decide all the issues afresh. 24. After the remand of the case the appellant Trust never applied before the Trial Court for their impleadment as defendant in the Suit. The Suit was decided 27/09/2017 and the appeal filed against the said Judgment was decided by the impugned order on 16-10-2019. 24. After the remand of the case the appellant Trust never applied before the Trial Court for their impleadment as defendant in the Suit. The Suit was decided 27/09/2017 and the appeal filed against the said Judgment was decided by the impugned order on 16-10-2019. For almost nine long years the case was pending before the courts below but no action was taken by the Trust for its impleadment despite having full knowledge of the pendency of the matter and now the second appeal has been filed by the Trust. The appellant Trust could also have filed a Civil suit for appropriate reliefs if their rights were affected but the trust did not choose to file any civil suit either. It appears that the Trust as ‘B’ team of the appellant State is acting in collusion with State to frustrate the respondent society. 25. The appeal filed by the State of M.P. and Ors., being devoid of merits as no question of law much less substantial question of law is found involved in this appeal for consideration, fails and is hereby dismissed . The judgments in Santosh Hazari ( ibid ) and Chandra bhan ( ibid ) have no bearing in specific factual matrix of the case. 26. Since the appellant Trust do not have any independent rights in the suit property and the trust is claiming through the State of Madhya Pradesh and appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh has been dismissed by this Court therefore the application for permission to prosecute this appeal is devoid of merits and the same is also liable to dismissed and is hereby dismissed and consequently this second appeal is also dismissed. 27. Before parting with the case, application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC by Indore Development Authority for impleading IDA as respondent in this appeal is also required to be considered. The Indore Development Authority had filed Similar application Second Appeal No. 507/1998 which was rejected by this court vide order dated 07/07/2009. Since the appeal filed by the State of M.P. has been dismissed on admission stage, the application filed by the Indore Development Authority under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment can not stand independently, hence also rejected. Any other applications if pending shall stand closed. 28. Since the appeal filed by the State of M.P. has been dismissed on admission stage, the application filed by the Indore Development Authority under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment can not stand independently, hence also rejected. Any other applications if pending shall stand closed. 28. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the record of connected appeal also. Certified copy as per rules.