Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of the present Civil Second Appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, in Civil Appeal No. 8/2020, whereby the learned Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2020 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, in Civil Original Case No. 61/2017 (77/2017), which had been partly decreed in favour of the respondents. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1–plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellants, asserting ownership over agricultural land situated at Chak 4-H, Tehsil Anoopgarh, Muraba No. 99/56 (New Muraba No. 39, Pathar No. 99/56), admeasuring 25 bighas, which had been allotted free of cost by the State Government in favour of Smt. Harbai, widow of Prabhudayal. The plaintiff contended that she never executed any Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1979 in favour of Ajmer Singh (defendant No. 1) and that the alleged document was forged, fabricated, and unnotarized, thereby conferring no legal authority upon the said defendant. It was alleged that relying upon this bogus instrument, defendant No. 1 unlawfully alienated the suit land partly to his brother (defendant No. 2) and partly to defendant No. 3 through two registered sale deeds dated 29.03.2012 executed before the Sub-Registrar, Anoopgarh. The plaintiff averred that the impugned sale deeds were void ab initio, as no consent or authorization had ever been granted, and that the purported sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- was grossly undervalued, the actual market worth being in excess of Rs.11,00,000/-. On discovering the transactions on 18.06.2012, the plaintiff filed the suit within the period of limitation, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed on the strength of the alleged Power of Attorney be declared null and void and set aside. 2.1. The defendants filed a joint written statement, denying the allegations and asserting that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed a sale agreement dated 30.04.1979 in favour of defendant No. 1 and his mother for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-, out of which Rs.55,000/- was paid in cash. 2.1. The defendants filed a joint written statement, denying the allegations and asserting that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed a sale agreement dated 30.04.1979 in favour of defendant No. 1 and his mother for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-, out of which Rs.55,000/- was paid in cash. It was further pleaded that, in pursuance thereof, the plaintiff executed a duly notarized Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 1, drafted by Advocate Murari Lal Meda in the presence of Dhanna Singh and Laxman Ram, with her thumb impression affixed in their presence. The defendants contended that possession of the suit land was handed over to Kirtar Kaur on the date of agreement, who remained in possession till her death on 06.12.1995, after which the defendants continued in lawful possession. It was also pleaded that a criminal complaint lodged by the plaintiff culminated in FIR No. 493/2012, in which investigation allegedly confirmed the authenticity of the Power of Attorney. The defendants further relied on the fact that one Sugan Devi Kaur had filed a suit for specific performance concerning the same land, which she later withdrew upon being apprised of the defendants’ ownership. 2.2. Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed four issues, including that of relief. The plaintiff examined four witnesses and produced twelve documents, whereas the defendants examined eight witnesses and exhibited thirty-three documents. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Civil Judge, Anoopgarh, by judgment and decree dated 31.08.2020, partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 8/2020 before the learned Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 16.11.2024 thereby affirming the findings and decree of the learned Trial Court. Hence the instant Second Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are contrary to law and facts and deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the Trial Court improperly framed the issues, which prevented the parties from adducing evidence relevant to the real controversy, and that the Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding Issue No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff without considering the cross-appeal. The courts below erred in holding that the sale deeds dated 29.03.2012 were void-ab-initio, despite clear evidence establishing the authenticity of the Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1979 and subsequent transactions. The courts below erred in holding that the sale deeds dated 29.03.2012 were void-ab-initio, despite clear evidence establishing the authenticity of the Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1979 and subsequent transactions. It is further submitted that the Trial Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction as the suit sought a declaration nullifying sale deeds valued over Rs.8,00,000/-, exceeding its statutory limit of Rs.2,00,000/-, and that proper court fees were not assessed, since the plaintiff was admittedly a party to the documents. The appellants further contend that the Power of Attorney was a general power conferred in conjunction with the sale agreement, and alleged corrections therein do not invalidate it; the courts below failed to consider the documents and evidence, including prior exoneration of the defendants in a criminal case concerning the Power of Attorney, in a holistic and judicial manner. The substantial questions of law arising in this appeal include whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit, whether the Trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction, whether proper court fees were paid, whether issues were properly framed, and whether the finding that the plaintiff was not a party to the Power of Attorney is legally sustainable. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–plaintiff has vehemently opposed the appeal, contending that both the courts below have concurrently recorded findings of fact after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, and such concurrent findings do not warrant interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is submitted that the very foundation of the defendants’ claim—the alleged Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1979 (Ex. P-1)—has been categorically found to be forged and fabricated. The interpolation on the second page of the said document, wherein the phrase ^^fod; dh Lohd`fr izkIr djsa^^ was altered to ^^fodz; djsa Lohd`fr izkIr djsa^^ , is apparent, conspicuous, and unmistakably establishes that manipulation was carried out with the intent to create an unfounded authority of sale. The document was thus rendered void ab initio, and consequently, the subsequent sale deeds executed on the basis of such forged authority are themselves nullities in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. P-2) unequivocally corroborates the finding of forgery, thereby rendering the defence of the appellants unsustainable. The document was thus rendered void ab initio, and consequently, the subsequent sale deeds executed on the basis of such forged authority are themselves nullities in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. P-2) unequivocally corroborates the finding of forgery, thereby rendering the defence of the appellants unsustainable. It was argued that once the substratum—the Power of Attorney—is proved to be forged, all subsequent transactions founded upon it automatically crumble, irrespective of their formality or registration. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that Ajmer Singh, the principal defendant, had already preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was dismissed after detailed and reasoned consideration of every factual and legal aspect. The concurrent findings of both the courts below are based upon cogent evidence and sound reasoning. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated by the appellants. The contention regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court fees has been rightly repelled by both the courts, as the plaintiff, not being a party to the impugned sale deeds, was competent to seek declaratory relief on the valuation furnished in the plaint. Thus, the appeal deserves outright dismissal. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments impugned and examined the material as made available on record. 7. Having given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and having meticulously perused the material available on record, this Court finds no cogent ground warranting interference with the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below. The findings impugned are well-reasoned, founded upon due appreciation of evidence, and cannot be characterized as either perverse or legally infirm. The primary contention of the appellants hinges upon the alleged validity of the Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1979 (Ex. P-1); however, a bare ocular scrutiny of the said instrument reveals manifest tampering and interpolation. On the second page of the document, the phrase ^^fod; dh Lohd`fr izkIr djsa^^ has been palpably altered to read as ^^fodz; djsa Lohd`fr izkIr djsa^^- The alteration is patent, conspicuous, and goes to the root of the document, unmistakably demonstrating that the Power of Attorney was manipulated with the ulterior motive of converting a limited authority of consent into a plenary authority of sale. Such interpolation strikes at the very substratum of the document, rendering it void ab initio. 8. It is well-settled that a document tainted by forgery cannot create, transfer, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property. The principle that fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) is squarely attracted in the present case. The forensic examination report (Ex. P-2) unequivocally substantiates that the disputed writing and alterations in the Power of Attorney are not genuine. Consequently, all subsequent sale deeds dated 29.03.2012, which derive their legitimacy solely from the said forged Power of Attorney, stand nullified as derivative nullities. It is trite that when the foundation of a transaction is vitiated by fraud, every superstructure raised upon it collapses automatically. Hence, the contention that subsequent conveyances were otherwise regular or duly registered becomes wholly immaterial; no edifice of legality can stand on a fraudulent base. 9. The learned Trial Court, upon a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence, has rightly declared the Power of Attorney and the consequent sale deeds as void and inoperative, and consequently issued an appropriate injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondent’s lawful possession. The learned First Appellate Court, while re-examining the entire record, has affirmed these findings with cogent reasoning and detailed analysis. It has rightly observed that the interpolation in Ex. P-1 is not a mere clerical correction but a deliberate and material alteration intended to fabricate an authority to alienate property. Such conduct vitiates the entire transaction and strikes at the core of contractual and fiduciary obligations. The appellate findings are thus firmly anchored in both fact and law and warrant no reappraisal by this Court. 10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to reiterate the settled legal principle that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is circumscribed and can be invoked only when a substantial question of law is demonstrably involved. The legislative intent underlying Section 100 CPC is to restrict interference by the High Court in concurrent findings of fact, thereby maintaining the sanctity of finality in factual determinations. A substantial question of law must be one of general importance or one which directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and which has not been settled by authoritative pronouncement. A substantial question of law must be one of general importance or one which directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and which has not been settled by authoritative pronouncement. Mere erroneous appreciation of evidence or dissatisfaction with findings of fact does not constitute such a question. 11. In the instant case, the appellants have failed to formulate or establish any substantial question of law that merits consideration. Their challenge is confined to re-assessment of documentary and oral evidence, which squarely falls within the prohibited domain of this Court’s revisional scrutiny under Section 100 CPC. The concurrent findings of the courts below being well-reasoned and founded upon credible evidence, do not call for any interference. Accordingly, this Court holds that no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present second appeal. 12. For the reasons aforestated, the Second Appeal stands dismissed as being devoid of merit. The judgments and decrees dated 31.08.2020 and 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Anoopgarh, and the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Anoopgarh, in Civil Original Case No.61/2017 (77/2017) and Civil Appeal No.08/2020 respectively, are hereby affirmed. The decree of declaration and injunction issued in favour of the respondent-plaintiff is upheld in toto. No order as to costs.