ORDER : 1. The present appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), by the appellants – original defendants No.3 to 7, arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.01.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mahisagar at Lunawada in Regular Civil Appeal No.22 of 2019, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Lunawada in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2017, which is allowed. 2. The brief facts of the present case are as under : 2.1 Originally, the land being Survey No.103 situated at Mouje – Village Chatkabeli, Tal. & District : Lunawada (for short ‘the land in question’) was in the name of deceased Chimanlal Maganlal Trivedi. He has transferred the land in question to his one of the sons viz., Arunkumar Chimanlal Trivedi by way of a registered Will and entry to that effect has been mutated in the revenue record on 05.07.2004. There is no dispute about the same. 2.2 Said Arunkumar has sold the land in question to his two real brothers viz., Narendrakumar Chimanlal Trivedi and Anilkumar Chimanlal Trivedi by way of a registered sale deed No.1320 on 02.12.2005 for consideration of Rs.11,000/-. 2.3 Since both these brothers – purchasers were residing out of Village : Chatkabeli and the seller – Arunkumar is residing there, said Arunkumar looked after the affairs of the land in question thereafter. 2.4 When it came to mutate in the revenue entry regarding the sale deed, said Arunkumar has raised objections qua mutation of revenue entry of the sale deed, but since they are the real brothers, compromise was taken place and said Arunkumar has withdrawn his objections. 2.5 The land in question was again sold by said Arunkumar to defendants No.3 to 7, who are third persons and resident of said village, by way of a registered sale deed No.1220 on 30.07.2015 and taken sale consideration. 2.6 Arunkumar died on 18.11.2016. Original defendants No.1 and 2 are the heirs of Arunkumar, who happens to be the nephew of original plaintiffs. 2.7 The registered sale deed No.1320 dated 02.12.2005 executed by and between Arunkumar and his real brothers is neither cancelled nor Arunkumar has approached any Civil Court for cancellation of said registered sale deed till date. 2.6 Arunkumar died on 18.11.2016. Original defendants No.1 and 2 are the heirs of Arunkumar, who happens to be the nephew of original plaintiffs. 2.7 The registered sale deed No.1320 dated 02.12.2005 executed by and between Arunkumar and his real brothers is neither cancelled nor Arunkumar has approached any Civil Court for cancellation of said registered sale deed till date. 2.8 After second sale deed in favour of defendants No.3 to 7 – present appellants, they have tried to get possession of the land in question from the erstwhile purchasers – original plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs – first purchasers have filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2017 before the learned trial Court for declaration and cancellation of sale deed executed by Arunkumar in favour of defendants No.3 to 7 dated 30.07.2015, which is subsequent to their sale deed dated 02.12.2005. 2.9 The learned trial Court has, after considering the rival submissions and various evidence on record, allowed the suit and cancelled the subsequent registered sale deed dated 30.07.2015 executed in favour of defendants No.3 to 7. 2.10 Being aggrieved, defendants No.3 to 7 have filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.22 of 2019 before the learned appellate Court below, which is dismissed by the learned appellate Court below, on merit. 2.11 Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 – Jitendrabhai, one of the legal heirs of deceased Arunkumar has also filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.3 of 2020, which is also dismissed by the learned appellate Court below, on merit. 2.12 It is these judgments and decrees impugned which are challenged by defendants No.3 to 7 before this Court in this appeal. 3. Heard learned advocates. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vijal P. Desai for the appellants – original defendants No.3 to 7 has submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in not appreciating the evidences and materials produced before it in their true spirit and perspective. He has further submitted that at the time of second sale deed, the name of Arunkumar was there in the revenue record and therefore, title and possession of the land in question was with said Arunkumar and therefore, the sale deed was executed by him in favour of defendants No.3 to 7 and name of defendant No.3 was also mutated in the revenue record, which is not challenged by any one till date. 4.2 He has also submitted that the original plaintiffs did not file any suit till the death of Arunkumar. He has submitted that Arunkumar has taken electricity connection in his name at that time; and that neither possession nor title ever given to any before second sale deed by Arunkumar; and that the first so-called purchasers have never paid any sale consideration to Arunkumar as stated in the sale deed; and that only after the sad demise of Arunkumar, the plaintiffs have filed a suit. 4.3 He has also submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in appreciating the aspect that appellant No.1 herein is the bona fide purchaser without notice. He has also submitted that the appellant No.1 herein has purchased the land in question when title was found clear by the revenue authority; and that original plaintiffs have not registered any lis pendent with the authority and therefore, the appellants had no knowledge about the previous sale deed. 4.4 He has also submitted that Arunkumar was the ostensible owner of the suit land and therefore, appellant No.1 was the bona fide purchaser of the land in question; and that the mutation entry whereby the names of the original plaintiffs were entered into, is rejected by the authority and thereafter, the original plaintiffs have not preferred any appeal against the said rejection. 4.5 He has also submitted that one witness viz., Shankarbhai Dhulabhai was examined at Exh.48 wherein he has stated that he was cultivating the land in question for Arunkumar, which shows that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the land in question. This aspect has been ignored by the learned Courts below. 4.6 He has also submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have paid sale consideration to Arunkumar at the time of purchasing the land in question in the year 2005. Both the Courts below have not property appreciated this fact and rejected the submissions made the appellants. 4.7 Learned advocate for the appellants has suggested the following substantial questions of law for determination of this Court : (i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are vitiated by not complying the mandatory requirements of O.41 R.31 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? 4.7 Learned advocate for the appellants has suggested the following substantial questions of law for determination of this Court : (i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are vitiated by not complying the mandatory requirements of O.41 R.31 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? (ii) Whether or not the First Appellate Court has erred in not framing the point of determination as mandatory in provisions of O.41 R.31(a) of CPC ? (iii) Whether or not both the Courts below have erred in believing the true scope of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act ? (iv) Whether or not both the Courts below have erred in believing the true scope of Section 41 and the proviso of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act ? (v) Whether or not both the Courts below have erred in appreciating the legal definition of bona fide purchaser ? (vi) Whether or not both the Courts below have erred in appreciating the true scope of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act ? (vii) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are vitiated by adopting an essentially wrong approach to the matter ? 4.8 He has submitted that this appeal may be allowed. 5.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Aaditya P. Dave for the respondent No.1 – original plaintiff No.1 has submitted that the land in question is originally in the name of their father i.e. Chimanlal Trivedi. He has given the land in question to Arunkumar by way of a registered Will and therefore, Arunkumar has become the owner of the land in question. Since Arunkumar was taking care of parents at village and other real brothers are residing in another cities, it was done and there is no issue regarding Will between the brothers. He has submitted that since Arunkumar wanted to sale the land in question, being the father’s property, the plaintiffs being the real brothers have purchased the land in question from Arunkumar by paying sale consideration of Rs.11,000/- by way of a registered sale deed in the year 2005. 5.2 He has further submitted that Arunkumar has never challenged the said registered sale deed till his death and therefore, the said registered sale deed holds the filed till today. 5.3 He has also submitted that the present appellants are not the bona fide purchasers. 5.2 He has further submitted that Arunkumar has never challenged the said registered sale deed till his death and therefore, the said registered sale deed holds the filed till today. 5.3 He has also submitted that the present appellants are not the bona fide purchasers. They have checked the revenue records/entries, where they can find the sale deed and Takrari entry, even though they have purchased the land in question. 5.4 He has also submitted that the revenue entries are for fiscal purpose which do not confer any title or ownership. The title or ownership confers only by registered sale deed. 5.5 He has submitted that mere not mutating the entry in the revenue record, does not confer the right, title or interest as conferred by a registered sale deed in favour of any party. He has submitted that still, a registered sale deed holds the field. He has submitted that this appeal may be dismissed. 6. I have heard rival contentions of the respective parties. I have perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. I have considered the documents available on record. 7. The appeal revolves around the issue of a registered sale deed executed by deceased Arunkumar in favour of his brothers and without cancelling the said registered sale deed, again executed a registered sale deed by said deceased Arunkumar to the present appellants – original defendants No.3 to 7 by way of a registered sale deed. 8. From the record, the following undisputed facts are emerged : - The land in question was sold by Arunkumar to his real brothers – original plaintiffs by way of a registered sale deed No.1320 on 02.12.2005 for consideration of Rs.11,000/-. - Revenue Entry No.669 was mutated qua sale deed on 10.01.2006. - Before certifying the said revenue entry, seller - Arunkumar has raised objections qua the mutation of entry regarding said sale deed before the learned revenue authority and Takrari Case No.14 of 2006 was registered. Therefore, revenue entry No.669 regarding sale deed got cancelled by that proceeding, which is not challenged by the purchasers. - Thereafter, since the parties of the said sale deed are the real brothers, the objections were withdrawn by Arunkumar and Takrari case is disposed of by the revenue authority. Therefore, revenue entry No.669 regarding sale deed got cancelled by that proceeding, which is not challenged by the purchasers. - Thereafter, since the parties of the said sale deed are the real brothers, the objections were withdrawn by Arunkumar and Takrari case is disposed of by the revenue authority. - The revenue entry qua the sale deed is cancelled by the revenue authority, but the registered sale deed is in existence. Arunkumar has never approached to any authority/Courts for cancellation of said registered sale deed. - The said registered sale deed holds the filed till today. - Said Arunkumar has again sold the land in question to defendants No.3 to 7 – third party by way of a registered sale deed No.1220 on 30.07.2015 and received sale consideration. - Therefore, there were two registered sale deeds qua one land i.e. the land in question. - Said Arunkumar has died on 18.11.2016. - The learned trial Court has cancelled the subsequent sale deed by the impugned judgment and decree. 9. In view of above undisputed facts, the following questions are posed by this Court to itself which are very relevant and have direct impact upon the issue in question before this Court. - Whether Arunkumar can execute sale deed again to any one and received sale consideration, though knowing fully well about the fact that the first registered sale deed is in existence and not cancelled ? - Whether Arunkumar has title over the land in question at the time of subsequent sale deed, once he has sold the land in question to his real brothers and said document is in existence ? - Whether Arunkumar has ever questioned the first sale deed ? - After looking to the revenue records/entries, whether a prudent man should purchase any property ? 10.1 Both the learned Courts below have, after considering the various evidence – documentary as well as oral at Exh.18, 32, 34 to 40, 46, 48, 55, 79 and 57 to 76, framed the issues at Exh.26 by the learned trial Court and framed the points for determination by the learned appellate Court below, dismissed the submissions made by the present appellants – original defendants No.3 to 7. While allowing the suit of the original plaintiffs – present respondents No.1 and 2 and dismissing the appeal of the present appellants – original defendants No.3 to 7, both the learned Courts below have observed that the present appellant No.1 – original defendant No.3, who is subsequent so-called purchaser, in his cross-examination, has stated that he himself has produced all the revenue entries; and that Arunkumar has received Rs.11,000/- as sale consideration at the time of first registered sale deed dated 02.12.2005; and that Arunkumar has raised objections before the revenue authority for mutating the revenue entry regarding registered sale deed and he, himself has withdrawn the same; and that the possession was handed over to the purchasers by said Arunkumar in the year 2005; and that Arunkumar has never approached any revenue authority and/or Court for cancellation of said registered sale deed; and that considering the deposition of the subsequent purchaser – defendant No.3, it transpires that he has received all the revenue records/entries and he has received opinion from the revenue authority as to whether the land in question is salable or not; and that it is there on record that there was previous sale deed of the land in question; and that there is no title clearing report received by the subsequent purchaser from any authority/person; and that subsequent purchaser has failed to establish that he is a bona fide purchaser; and that the first purchasers are not residing at Village : Chatkabeli; and that seller, being the real brother, who was residing at Village : Chatkabeli, was looked after the affairs of the land in question; and that after subsequent sale deed, Arunkumar has given possession of the land in question illegally to the subsequent purchaser behind the back of the first purchasers’ knowledge; and that revenue entry is only for fiscal purpose to know as to from whom revenue is to be collected; and that revenue entry does not confer any title or ownership; only registered sale deed or partition of ancestral property by the family arrangement confers title and ownership. 10.2 The learned trial Court has allowed the suit of the plaintiffs – first purchasers and cancelled the subsequent registered sale deed No.1220 dated 30.07.2015. 11. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under: “[100. 10.2 The learned trial Court has allowed the suit of the plaintiffs – first purchasers and cancelled the subsequent registered sale deed No.1220 dated 30.07.2015. 11. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which 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. (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.” 12. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs and Others., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 875, more particularly paragraphs 7, 14 and 15 thereof, which read as under : “7. The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC passing muster are well established. The section itself dictates that such an appeal shall only be maintainable when the case involves a substantial question of law or that the appellate decree has been passed ex parte. the latter, obviously is not the case. This court has, in a multitude of decisions, expounded on what may be termed as a substantial question of law to satisfy the requirements of section 100. the latter, obviously is not the case. This court has, in a multitude of decisions, expounded on what may be termed as a substantial question of law to satisfy the requirements of section 100. In Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala (2- Judge Bench), it was observed:— “27. In HeroVinoth v. Seshammal [HeroVinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 ], this Court referred to and relied upon Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ] and other judgments and summarised the tests to find out whether a given set of questions of law were mere questions of law or substantial questions of law. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in Hero Vinoth [Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 ] are set out hereinbelow : (SCC p. 554, para 21) “21. The phrase “substantial question of law”, as occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC 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 v. Ram Ditta [Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta, 1928 SCC OnLine PC 31 : (1927-28) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172 ] the phrase “substantial question of law” as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (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. In Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. In Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ] the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju [Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju, 1951 SCC OnLine Mad 100 : AIR 1951 Mad 969 ] : (Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ], AIR p. 1318, para 5) ‘5. … 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 views, 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 facts of the case it would not be a substantial question of law.’ 28. To be “substantial”, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of the parties before it, if answered either way.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. As already noted above, another ground of objection taken by the Appellant is the fact of the impugned judgment entering into a reappreciation of evidence. While it is true that ordinarily, in second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court. However, it is also equally well recognised that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone. In Nazir Mohamed (supra) this Court has recognised three conditions in which a court in such jurisdiction, may disturb findings of fact. They are:— “(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. They are:— “(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. 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.” 15. A Bench of three learned Judges, recently in Balasubramanian v. M. Arockiasamy (Dead) Through LRs. , had referred to, with approval judgment rendered in Ramathal v. Maruthathal (two-Judge Bench) wherein it was observed that the restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule. Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such findings.” 13. Thus, from the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the impugned judgments and observations made by both the learned Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that both the learned Courts below have framed the issues/points and decided it accordingly by giving cogent and convincing reasons, as recorded in the impugned judgments. The impugned judgments of both the learned Courts below are just, proper, in accordance with law and in consonance with the material available on the record as well as after properly appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on the record. This Court finds that there is no perversity or illegality in the findings given by both the Courts below. The impugned judgments and decrees are just, proper and legal and no interference is required to be made by this Court. This Court further finds that no any question, much less any substantial question of law arises in this group of appeals for consideration of this Court. 14. Under the circumstances, the second appeal needs to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly, at the admission stage. 15. In view of above, interim application would not survive and is disposed of accordingly.