- (1.) The dispute is about the land situate in front of Plot No.2437 of which the plaintiff-appellant claims to be the owner.
(2.) Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the plaintiff-appellant is not the owner of the said land. These findings are based on the perusal of the evidence on record.
(3.) The scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been explained by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. In Panchugopal Barua Vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami reported in (1997) 4 SCC 713 the Supreme Court while explaining the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure observed as follows:- "7. A bare look at Section 100 CPC shows that the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal after the 1976 Amendment is confined only to such appeals as involve a substantial question of law, specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal and formulated by the High Court. Of course, the proviso to the section shows that nothing 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 the court is satisfied that the case involves such a question. The proviso presupposes that the court shall indicate in its order the substantial question of law which it proposes to decide even if such substantial question of law was not earlier formulated by it. The existence of a ''substantial question of law' is thus the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 C.P.C.";