- (1.)THE present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code by the appellant-original plaintiff raising only grounds as set out in the memo of appeal without even framing any substantial questions of law, which can be said to have been posed for consideration of this Court.
(2.)LEARNED counsel, Mr.Modi, however, submitted that he is not claiming the right, title or interest but is claiming the possession of the disputed land and, therefore, he has sought to challenge the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.
Facts as briefly stated are that the the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.194/1995 before the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (SD), Himatnagar for a prayer regarding the possession that he is in a possession of the disputed land and he may not be dispossessed from the suit property. The said Suit came to be dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2006 passed by the 5th Additional Civil Judge (SD), Himatnagar. Against the said dismissal of the said Suit, Civil Appeal No.34 of 2006 came to be filed, which also came to be rejected by the Learned Additional District Judge, Himatnagar.

In view of the material and evidence on record, there is a specific observation with regard to the fact that various documents Exh.109 to Exh.124 are produced on record, from which, it transpires that the suit property belongs to the Government and even the Sarpanch of the village has also supported the case. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel, Mr.Modi are misconceived.

(3.)IT is well settled in view of the fact that the scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is very limited and unless there is a substantial questions of law involved, the Court should not entertain. As there is no substantial questions of law posed or even involved, the present Second Appeal cannot be entertained in light of the settled legal position as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgments reported in AIR 2006 SC 2172 in case of Mst. Sugani V/s Rameshwar Das & Anr., (2007)1 SCC 546 in case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. V/s Kaki & Ors. and (2009)5 SCC 264 in case of Narayanan Rajendran & Anr. V/s Lekshmy Sarojini & Ors.
Accordingly, the present Second Appeal stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.