ORDER : J. C. DOSHI, J. 1. This second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”) questions the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Arvalli @ Modasa in Regular Civil Appeal No.37 of 2022, by which the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Jujdge, Modasa in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2010, whereby the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court. 3. Following questions of law have been posed as substantial questions of law:- “(a) Whether the Courts below have committed a substantial error of law in holding that no enforceable right can arise under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, unless final certification under Rule 8(7) is issued, ignoring the protective and beneficial nature of the legislation? (b)Whether the courts below have erred in law in treating long, continuous, and settled possession as irrelevant, contrary to the settled principles governing injunction and possessory rights, even against the State? (c) Whether the First Appellate Court failed to discharge its statutory duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, by not independently re-appreciating the entire evidence and by merely affirming the findings of the Trial Court? (d) Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse in law, inasmuch as they are based on selective reading of admissions while ignoring material documentary evidence produced by the appellant? (e) Whether reliance placed solely on revenue entries (7/12 extract) without examining actual possession and cultivation, amounts to an error of law? (f) Whether the dismissal of the suit without considering the doctrine of settled possession and due process of law, violates Articles 300-A and 21 of the Constitution of India?” 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction to declare that the l had been provided/allotted land bearing survey No.157 being forest land admeasuring 10 acre situated at village Dhandhiya, Tal: Meghraj (in short “suit land”) after following due process to cultivate the land and the defendants have no whatsoever right to disturb the possession of the l or to carry out any plantation within the suit land provided / allotted to the plaintiff. A declaration has been sought with perpetual injunction that the defendants be restrained from restraining the plaintiff from enjoying the possession of the suit land and further restrained from disturbing the plaintiff from taking crop from the suit land. 4.1 The aforesaid relief was claimed by the plaintiff in the backdrop of pleadings that the forest department and defendant Nos.4 and 5 were part of the Committee constituted under the Government schemes for granting forest land to persons who have been cultivating such land for several years. 4.2 Since the father of the plaintiff have been cultivating suit land since many years, said suit land was allotted to the father of the plaintiff after following due process of law and since then, the suit land is continued in possession of the plaintiff. 4.3 According to the plaintiff, under the Government policies and resolutions applicable to Scheduled Tribes and forest dwellers, persons who have been in long and continuous cultivation of forest land are entitled to be granted such land permanently. Defendant No. 3 is the authority empowered by the Government to implement these provisions. Under the scheme, a Committee was formed and 25 cases from Dhandhiya village were approved, including the case the present plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff was allotted land admeasuring Hectare- RA-Sq. Metre 02-02-34 from Survey No. 157 by an order passed by Defendant No. 3. Despite this long- standing cultivation and the Government's order in favour of the plaintiff, Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 pressure upon have been exerting undue plaintiff to vacate the land. Being influential persons and Committee members, they are attempting to have the land allotted illegally to their own relatives. The plaintiff stated that the these defendants have no lawful authority to interfere with his possession, cultivation, or enjoyment of the land, nor to undertake plantation or any Because the said land. on their of this was activity continuous interference, threats, and obstruction created by the defendants, the plaintiff compelled to file the present suit. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the servants, defendants, agents, representatives, or anyone claiming through them from entering upon the suit- land, obstructing the plaintiff's cultivation, causing any hindrance, undertaking plantation activities, or in any manner disturbing the plaintiff's possession or causing damage to his crops. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the servants, defendants, agents, representatives, or anyone claiming through them from entering upon the suit- land, obstructing the plaintiff's cultivation, causing any hindrance, undertaking plantation activities, or in any manner disturbing the plaintiff's possession or causing damage to his crops. The plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the defendants have no right, title, interest, or authority whatsoever over the portion of Survey No. 157 that has been allotted to him. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement at Exhibit 20, denying all allegations in the plaint. They contend that the plaintiff has filed a false suit to obtain forest land illegally, and that the land claimed by the plaintiff has been developed through plantation by the Forest Department. They argue that no irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused, while grant of an injunction would irreparable loss to the Government. They further state that under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, read with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ forest land cannot be Petition No. 202/1995, allotted without the prior approval of the Central Government, and that encroachers on forest land are liable to be removed under the law. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 also filed a separate written statement at Exhibit 28, denying the plaintiff's allegations and asserting that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. They therefore pray that the suit and the application for injunction be granted. 4.4 The defendant has resisted the suit defendant nos.1 to 3 have submitted their written argument at Exh.20 and Exh.28 for the defendant No.4 and 5, wherein, they denied the facts stated in the Plaint except facts which are clearly admitted. The defendants submit that the plaintiff has made a false and fraudulent claim with the intention of illegally acquiring forest land and has wrongfully taken unlawful possession thereof. It is further stated that the Forest Department has developed the said land through plantation activities, despite this, the plaintiff has put forth a baseless and dishonest claim over the land. The defendants further contend that no irreparable loss or injury will be caused to the plaintiff if the relief sought by him is refused. It is further stated that the Forest Department has developed the said land through plantation activities, despite this, the plaintiff has put forth a baseless and dishonest claim over the land. The defendants further contend that no irreparable loss or injury will be caused to the plaintiff if the relief sought by him is refused. On the contrary, if any injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants, including the Forest Department, would suffer substantial and irreparable loss, and it would also adversely affect public interest. Additionally, the affect defendants have asserted in their written statement that, under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, read with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 202/1995, no forest land can be allotted, granted, or transferred without the prior approval of the Central Government. Whenever forest land is encroached upon or cultivated illegally by local persons, the Forest Department is duty-bound to take lawful action in accordance with the rules and statutory provisions governing forest protection. In light of the above facts and legal position, the defendants submit that the plaintiff's suit and the application for temporary injunction are false, frivolous, and devoid of merit, and therefore deserve to be dismissed with costs. 4.5 The learned Principal Senior Civil Jujdge, Modasa dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 4.6 Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.37 of 2022, which was also dismissed. 4.7 Hence, present second appeal. 5. In order to admission of this appeal, learned advocate Mr. Modi mainly argue in line of the substantial questions of law that the learned Courts below have committed serious and manifest error in ignoring the provisions of the Forest Right Act, 2006 (in short “the Act”). He would further submit that the father of the plaintiff was allotted forest land by the State Government and its officers under the Government policy and therefore, unless final certificate under Rule 8(7) of the Act is not issued, possession of the suit land cannot be taken away from the plaintiff. He would further submit that the learned appellate Court has selectively read the oral evidence of the plaintiff to decide the appeal. He would further submit that the learned Courts below has committed serious error in solely relying upon the revenue entries without examining actual possession and cultivation by the plaintiff. He would further submit that the learned appellate Court has selectively read the oral evidence of the plaintiff to decide the appeal. He would further submit that the learned Courts below has committed serious error in solely relying upon the revenue entries without examining actual possession and cultivation by the plaintiff. He would further submit that dismissal of the suit as well as the appeal without considering the doctrine of settled possession in due process of law violates Article 300A and 21 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, he would submit that the learned appellate Court failed to refer Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code having mandatory in nature. 5.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Modi requests to admit this second appeal. 6. Having heard learned advocate for the plaintiffs and so as to understand the scope and limitation, let refer section 100 of the Code as under:- “(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.]” 7. The High Court in order to admit second appeal is required to be satisfied that substantial questions of law is involved in the case and having so satisfied has to formulate that question. The High Court in order to admit second appeal is required to be satisfied that substantial questions of law is involved in the case and having so satisfied has to formulate that question. Existence of a substantial question of law is sine-qua-non for the exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of section 100 of the Code. The second appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous findings of facts based on appreciation of the relevant evidence. [See: Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 ]. 8. In Govindaraja v. Mariamman, AIR 2005 SC 1008 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the scope of exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in second appeal under section 100 is limited to the substantial question of law. To be a substantial question of law it must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and answer to the same will have a material bearing of the party before the Court. 9. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs Versus Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs And Others, 2023 (20) SCC 104 , in para 7, 14 and 15 held 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. 14. The principles of law cited herein may be undoubtedly good law, but, however, in the considered view of this court, they do not hold in the case put forward by the Appellant. A perusal of the witness statements of DW-3 as duly recorded by the High Court, (the court also relies on the cross examination portions of DW-4 although the same do not form part of the record before this court.) shows that father of the Appellant had indeed partitioned the property during his lifetime. In such situation selling a part of his share in an undivided property, is a question that does not arise. In such situation selling a part of his share in an undivided property, is a question that does not arise. Reliance on Shyam Sunder (supra) does not support the case of the Appellant as there is nothing on record to reflect any effort having been made by him to substitute himself in place of the Respondents in buying the 4 marlas of land from Faqir Singh in order to keep a stranger, namely Gurcharan Singh from entering into family- owned property. Had the Appellant made any such effort and the same would be reflected from record, then it could have been argued that he has a right to exclude the Respondents. 15. As already noted above, another ground of objection taken by the Appellant is the fact of the impugned judgement 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.” 10. In the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and Other v. Sahnulal and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “28. It is thus clear that under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.” 11. In backdrop of the aforesaid provisions of law, if we go through the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court, it appears that the points of determination are framed in para 13 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “1. Whether the appellant (plaintiff) has proved allotment or lawful right over the disputed land? 2. Whether judgment & decree passed in the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa in the Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2010 on dated 01.05.2025 is illegal, improper and required any interference in context of prayer of this Appeal? 3. What order ?” 12. Whether the appellant (plaintiff) has proved allotment or lawful right over the disputed land? 2. Whether judgment & decree passed in the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa in the Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2010 on dated 01.05.2025 is illegal, improper and required any interference in context of prayer of this Appeal? 3. What order ?” 12. The point of determination No.1 is important to decide the fate of the dispute. The findings thereof has been referred in para 17 by the learned appellate Court, which reads as under:- “Point No: 1: 1. Background: This Court has carefully considered the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff-plaintiff, and has thoroughly examined the factual matrix and the legal aspects involved in the present appeal. Upon such detailed scrutiny, it clearly emerges that the plaintiff has utterly failed to substantiate his claim with cogent, convincing, and legally admissible evidence. Point No. 1 has proved allotment or lawful right over the Whether the appellant (plaintiff) disputed land? 2. The burden to establish allotment, possession, or cultivation over any portion of Survey No.157 squarely rested upon the appellant. However, the material brought on record unmistakably reveals that the appellant has failed to discharge this essential burden. 3. The appellant, in his cross-examination, admitted that: - No evidence has been produced to show that his father ever cultivated the alleged 10 acres; - Survey No.157 is a Reserve Forest admeasuring 143 hectares and 30 gunthas; - He himself served as the Sarpanch and his third son was a member of the Forest Rights Committee. These admissions, coming from the appellant himself, strike at the very root of his case. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that admissions constitute the best evidence against the maker and require no corroboration. 4. The 7/12 extracts (Exh. 50) unequivocally reflect the name of the Reserve Forest Department in both occupancy and cultivator columns. When statutory revenue entries clearly record the land as forest land vested in the Government, a private claim of cultivation or allotment cannot be presumed or inferred in the absence of cogent documentary evidence. 5. The evidence of Baranda Sukabhai (Exh. 62) offers no assistance, as he candidly stated that he is unaware of any documentary proof showing the appellant's possession. Similarly, the Commissioner's report (Exh. though formally proved, does not indicate cultivation by the appellant. 77-79), 6. 5. The evidence of Baranda Sukabhai (Exh. 62) offers no assistance, as he candidly stated that he is unaware of any documentary proof showing the appellant's possession. Similarly, the Commissioner's report (Exh. though formally proved, does not indicate cultivation by the appellant. 77-79), 6. The appellant heavily relied on Exhibit-51 and Exhibit-52 issued by the Forest Rights Committee. However: - They only refer to provisional recognition of occupation over 2-02-34 hectares, not 10 acres; - Condition No.1 requires completion of the process under Rule 8(7) and issuance of a final cultivation rights certificate; - No GPS survey, no DILR measurement, and no Rule-8(7) certificate has been produced. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that provisional or recommendatory documents do not create enforceable rights unless the statutory procedure is fully complied with. 7. The letter of the Divisional Forest Officer (Exh. 57) further negates the appellant's claim, observing that: - The appellant possesses adequate agricultural lands elsewhere; - He has constructed an unauthorized structure on forest land; - He has failed to produce continuous revenue receipts. Thus, even the departmental communication relied upon by the appellant dismantles, rather than supports, his case. Most significantly, the affidavits of opponents' witnesses-Damor Ramabhai Thavrabhai (Exh.102) and Haribhai Madhabhai Rabari (Exh.109)- remained unchallenged as the appellant chose not to cross-examine them. As per settled law, uncross-examined testimony stands admitted and must be acted upon. 9. Cumulatively, it stands proved that: - The appellant has failed to prove possession; - Failed to prove cultivation; - Failed to prove allotment; - Failed to establish any lawful or antecedent right over any portion of Survey No.157. Hence, Point No.1 is conclusively answered in the NEGATIVE.” 13. It is a clear finding of the learned appellate Court that the plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted that he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he has been allotted the suit land, as his father was cultivating said one. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that land bearing survey No.157 is a part of reserved forest. It is further admitted that he was serving as Sarpanch and his one of the sons was member of the Forest Right Committee. This admission coming from the tongue of the plaintiff goes to the root of the case. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that land bearing survey No.157 is a part of reserved forest. It is further admitted that he was serving as Sarpanch and his one of the sons was member of the Forest Right Committee. This admission coming from the tongue of the plaintiff goes to the root of the case. The plaintiff in his pleadings claims that he has been allotted land by the Forest Right Committee, but there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the plaintiff has been allotted the suit land by Forest Right Committee. Rather it appears that the plaintiff taking advantage of his position as a Sarpanch has grabbed the reserved forest land. The 7/12 abstract (Exh.50) unequivocally reflects the name of the State Government and reserved forest department as owner, occupier and cultivator in both the column. This revenue entry can be ignored if other cogent and compulsive evidence is on record, but in absence of any cogent and compulsive evidence, it is established that at no point of time, the plaintiff or his father has been allotted lands from the reserved forest. 14. It is also noted by the learned trial Court referring Exhs.51 and 52 issued by the Forest Right Committee to hold that the plaintiff has not been allotted 10 acre land, but it is merely land admeasuring 2-02-34 hectare – are – sm and that too without GPS survey, DILR measurement or Rule 8(7) certification. Thus, in absence of any provisional or documentary evidence, no enforceable right creates in favour of the plaintiff. The learned appellate Court rightly held that the Divisional Forest Officer’s letter at Exh.57 indicates claim of the plaintiff on the ground that he adversely possessed agricultural land elsewhere and that he has carried out unauthorized construction on the forest land, but failed to produce continuous revenue receipts. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the plaintiff as a capacity of Sarpanch has filed the suit so as to grab the reserved forest land though he is a trustee of the Forest Right Committee. 16. Recently, this Court in case of Rambhai Madhubhai Rajput Since Decd.Thro His Heirs Versus State Of Gujarat, rendered in Second Appeal No.78 of 2004 , came across such kind of issue and referred to the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. 16. Recently, this Court in case of Rambhai Madhubhai Rajput Since Decd.Thro His Heirs Versus State Of Gujarat, rendered in Second Appeal No.78 of 2004 , came across such kind of issue and referred to the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. Para 21 thereof defines section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, which reads as under:- “21. Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act permits State Government to declare area as forest reserve. In view of section 20(1)(c) of the Forest Act, all lands to be included in the proposed forest, which the Forest Settlement Officer has acquired under the Land Acquisition Act have become vested in the State Government and shall be deemed to be reserved forest as per section 20(2) of the Forest Act. Section 5 of the Forest Act bars accrual of forest rights, once notification under section 4 of the Forest Act is published to notify reserved forest. At this stage, let refer section 23 and 24 of the Forest Act, which reads as under :- 23. No right acquired over reserved forest, except as here provided. - No right of any description shall be acquired in or over a reserved forest except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the [Government] or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification under section 20 was issued. 24. Rights not to be alienated without sanction. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 23, no right continued under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 15 shall be alienated by way of grant, sale, lease, mortgage or otherwise, without the sanction of the State Government : Provided that, when any such right is appended to any land or house, it may be sold or otherwise alienated with such land or house. (2) No timber or other forest-produce obtained in exercise of any such right shall be sold or bartered except to such extent as may have been admitted in the order recorded under section 14.” 17. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, according to this Court, the second appeal is nothing but one more dice in the gamble by the plaintiff as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. v. Kaki & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 18. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, according to this Court, the second appeal is nothing but one more dice in the gamble by the plaintiff as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. v. Kaki & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 18. As far as submission of the learned advocate for the plaintiff that the learned appellate Court has not followed Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code is concerned, it appears that the learned appellate Court has framed separate point of determination and decided the appeal by striking down the submissions of the plaintiff made in the appeal. 19. For the reasons stated herein-above, Second Appeal sans merits and accordingly, it is dismissed at admission stage. 20. Record and Proceedings, if any, be send back to learned Trial court concerned.