HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) Description of the case S.A. No. 102 of 2004 Chandrakanta D/o Kulijas Rai Vs. Smt. Krishna Sharma and others Approved for reporting Not Approved for reporting Date of Decision : 20.03.2008 Initial of Judge: Reserved HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL SECOND APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2004 Chandrakanta, D/o Kulijas Rai, R/o 18 Mission Compound Sanjay Gandhi Park, Saharanpur. At present R/o Purvavali Ganeshpur, Roorkee, District – Haridwar. …….Appellant/ Plaintiff. Versus 1. Smt. Krishna Sharma, W/o Man Mohan Rai Sharma, R/o Purvi Ambar Talab, Roorkee, Ghas Mandi, Roorkee, District – Haridwar. 2. Shri Saket Sharma, S/o late Man Mohan Rai Sharma, R/o Purvi Amber Talab, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Smt. Vipula, D/o late Sri Man Mohan Rai Sharma, W/o Dr. Gopal P. Gupta, R/o Lad Society Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. 4. Smt. Pragya, D/o Man Mohan Rai, D/o Chand Kishore, R/o 3-5, Sector GB CBD, Belapur, New Mumbai Maharashtra. …..Respondents/ Defendants. Dated: 20.3.2008 Hon’be Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Dharmendra Barthwal, counsel for the appellant and Sri Sachin Pawar, counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge/ Ist F.T.C. Roorkee, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2001 Smt. Leelawati Vs. Krishna Sharma and others and the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Roorkee in Original Suit No. 24 of 2000 Smt. Leelawati Vs. Krishna Sharma and others. 3. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff/ appellant being Original Suit No. 24 of 2000 Smt. Leelawati Vs. Krishna Sharma and others for partition of the property mentioned in the plaint. Prayer made in the suit is to the following effect: ^^v%& ;g fd fMxzh rdlhe ckcr tk;nkn en c gLc RkQlhy tSy cgd oknuh cjf[kykQ izfroknhx.k lkfnj Qjek;h tkdj tk;nkn en v esa oknuh dk 1@5 Hkkx rdlhe fd;k tkdj mlds Hkkx dk dqjkZ tqnkxkuk cuk;k tkos rFkk oknuh dks oknuh ds dqjsZ ij eq”rjdk n[ky ds LFkku ij n[ky tqnkxkuk fnyk;k tkosA c%& ;g fd oknuh dks [kpkZ eqdnek o Qhl odhy izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;h tk;sA l%& ;g fd vU; nknjlh tks jk; vnkyr esa oknuh ds i{k esa gks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;h tkosA fooj.k lEifRr ¼tk;nkn en ^^v**½ ,d fdrk vgkrk ftlesa nks nqdkusa iwohZ Hkkx esa iwoZ eqgkuh fufeZr gS vkSj ftuds Åij dh izFke ry ij ,d dejk ckFk:e o ySVjhu fLFkr gS o vU; rkehjkr ftlds iwoZ esa lMd uxj ikfydk ,oa if”pe esa jkLrk cknwg edku lw;Z ferry] mRrj esa lEifRr Jhefr d`’.kk “kekZ] nf{k.k esa xyh uxj ikfydk fLFkr iwohZ vEcj rkykc ?kkl eaMh dLck :Mdh ijxuk o rglhy :Mdh ftyk gfj}kjA Tkk;nkn en ^^c** ,d fdrk vgkrk ftlesa iwohZ Hkkx esa nks nqdkukr iwoZ eqgkuh o muds Åij ,d dejk] ySVjhu] ckFk:e rFkk bu nqdkukr ls if”pe dh rjQ viw.kZ] uo fufeZr nqdkukr dqy lEifRr ds iwoZ esa lMd uxj ikfydk] if”pe esa jkLrk] ftlds ckn edku lw;Z ferry] mRrj esa lEifRr d`’.kk “kekZ nf{k.k esa xyh uxj ikfydk fLFkr ekS0 iwohZ vECkj rkykc dLck :Mdh ijxuk o rglhy :Mdh ftyk gfj}kjA** 4. According to the plaintiff, her son namely. Man Mohan Rai Sharma had purchased the property No. A mentioned above from one Prem Jeevan Lal Bhatnagar, R/o Ambar Talab (East) on 5.11.1989 for a sale of consideration of Rs. 75,000/- and since then, he is in possession of the same. 5. In the eastern side of the said property, there are two shops, which were in the tenancy of Smt. Sudha Sarita and Vishnu Devki. On the said shops, there situate a room, a bathroom and Latrine. 6. In the property No. ‘B’ as mentioned above, Man Mohan Sharma has constructed the shops, which could not be completed and are still incomplete. Son of the plaintiff Man Mohan died leaving behind his mother (plaintiff), Smt. Krishna Sharma (wife), Saket Sharma (son), Smt. Vipula (daughter) and Smt. Pragya (daughter) as his legal heirs. It has further been stated that the plaintiff is the owner of 1/5th share of property “B’ and each and every heir is entitled to get 1/5th share in the said property. The shops situated in Property ‘A’ are still on rent and there always remains dispute regarding the partition of the amount of the rent, profits and house tax. Regarding the partition of the said property, the plaintiff asked the defendants, but no heed was paid by them, hence the aforesaid suit was filed. 6. Defendants have contested the averments contained in the suit by filing a written statement Paper No. 16 Ka. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that the plaintiff is not the mother of late Manmohan Ram Sharma and the plaintiff has no right in the said property. It has further been stated that one Tulsidas was the grandfather of Manmohan Rai. Paragraph 3, 4,5,6, 7 and 8 of the additional pleas are quoted below: ^^3& ;g fd Jh eu eksgu jk;s ds cqtqxZ Jh rqylh nkl FksA ftuds nks iq=x.k Jh eFkqjknkl o Jh ykypan gq;sA Jh eFkqjknkl ds 4 iq=x.k dqytljk;] tequknkl] Hkhelsu o vtqZunso o 2 iqf=;ka izdk”korh o lR;orh gqbZA ftuesa ls eFkqjknkl dh dsoy ,d iq=h Jhefr izdk”korh gh thfor gSA “ks’k lc dk nsgkar gks pqdk gSA Jh rqylhnkl ds nwljs iq= ykypan dk dsoy ,d iq= jkepUnz gqvkA 4& ;g fd jkepUnz iq= ykypan dk fookg Jhefr ;”kksnk ds lkFk gqvk Fkk] tks iV~Vh ftyk ve`rlj dh jgus okyh FkhA tcfd dqtyljk;s dk fookg Jhefr yhykorh ds lkFk gqvk Fkk tks il:j dh jgus okyh FkhA 5& ;g fd dqytljk;s ls mudh ifRu yhykorh us dsoy ,d iq= eueksgujk;s dks tUe fn;k Fkk vkSj iq= tUe ds dqN le; Ik”pkr Jh dqytljk;s dh ifRu o eueksgu jk;s dh ekrk Jhefr yhykorh dk nsgkar gks x;k FkkA mlh vjls esa jh dqytljk;s dh ppsjs HkkbZ Jh jkepan dk nsgkar gks x;k FkkA 6& ;g fd jkepaUnz dh fo/kok Jhefr ;”kksnk dk dqN le; ckn jh dqytljk;s dh ifRu ds :Ik esa jgus yxh FkhA Jh dqytljk;s mldh Hkh yhykorh ds uke ls gh lacksf/kr djus yxs FksA /khjs /khjs lHkh yksx Jhefr ;”kksnk dks yhykorh gh dgus yxs tks fd bl okn dh oknuh gSA bl izdkj oknuh Jhefr yhykorh tks okLro esa Jhefr ;”kksnk gS] LoxhZ; Jh eueksgu jk;s dh ekrk ugha gS vkSj tks mDr dkj.kksa ls Jh eueksgu jk;s dh mRjkf/kdkjh ugha gSA 7& ;g fd okfnuh us Jh dqytljk;s dh ifRu ds :Ik esa jgrs gq;s ,d iq= o 4 iqf=;ksa dks tUe fn;k FkkA ftuesa ls ,d iq= dk nsgkar gks x;k Fkk vkSj oknuh dh 4 iq=h;ka gh Jh eueksgu jk;s dh lkSrsyh cgus gq;hA 8& ;g fd Jh eueksgu jk;s dh ekrk Jhefr yhykorh dk nsgkar gksus ij] eueksgu jk;s dh vYi vkcw esa gh mudh cqvk Jhefr izdk”korh ifRu Jh nqxkZnkl vius Hkrhts eueksgu jk;s dh ijofj”k dh vkSj mUgksus gh lu~ 1962 ls izfroknh ua0 1 ds lkFk Jh eu eksgu jk;s dh “kknh dhA tks ckn esa Lo;a Hkh vius Hkrhts eu eksgu jk;s o mudh ifRu izfroknuh ua0 1 ds lkFk gh jgrh pyh vk jgh gSA** 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues: ^^1- D;k eueksgu jk; “kekZ us fookfnr lEifRr dks izsethoykyky HkVukxj iq= txthouyky HkVukxj ls vius fuft /ku eq0 35]000@& :Ik;s esa [kjhnh Fkh vkSj [kjhnus dh fn”kk esa dkfct ys x;k Fkk \ 2- D;k oknuh eueksgu jk; “kekZ dh lxh ekrk gSA ;fn gka rks D;k oknuh eueksgujk; dh mRrjkf/kdkjh gS vkSj ;fn gka rks D;k fookfnr lEifRr esa mldk 1@5 Hkkx gS \** 3- D;k izfroknh la[;k 1 us eueksgu jk; ds bykt o vfUre nkg laLdkj esa djhc 1]50]000@& :Ik;s [kpZ fd;k ;fn gka rks izHkko\ ** 4- oknh fd vuqrks’k dks ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS \ ** 8. On behalf of the plaintiff, Smt. Leelawati and one Smt. Chandrakanta have been examined and P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 respectively. Towards the documentary evidence, the plaintiff has filed per list 22 Ga one document and per list 37 Ga one document. 9. On behalf of the defendants, one Smt. Krishna Sharma and one Prakashwati have been examined as D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 respectively. 10. While deciding the issue no. 1 as to whether Man Mohan Rai had purchased the property in question from one Sri Prem Jeewan Lal Bhatnagar S/o Jagjeewan Bhatnagar for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from his own pocket and took the possession thereof, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the property ‘A’ was purchased by Man Mohan Rai by his own amount of Rs. 75,000/- and since then he became in possession thereof. Statements of Smt. Leelawati P.W. 1, Smt. Chandrakanta Smt. P.W.2, Shashi Bhushan P.W. 3 and a finding has been recorded that it has no where stated as to which property was purchased by Man Mohan Rai by his own money . 11. While deciding the issue no. 2 as to whether plaintiff is the real mother of Manmohan Rai Sharma and if the plaintiff is the heir of the Manmohan Rai she has right of 1/5 share in the property in question, reliance has been placed on Paper No. 23 Ga certified copy of the register issued by the office of Election Officer, which shows that at Sl. No. 340 in front of the name of Man Mohan Rai father’s name has been written as Gulshan Rai, at Serial No. 341 in front of name of Man Mohan Rai, wife’s name has been written as Krishna Sharma and at Serial No. 342 Leelawati has been shown as wife of Kujlasrai and at Serial No. 342 Leelawati has been shown as wife of Durga Das. Relying upon the aforesaid evidence, the trial court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is not the real mother of Man Mohan Rai and since she is not the real mother of Man Mohan Rai, she has no right of 1/5th share in the property in question. It has further been recorded that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the real mother of Man Mohan Rai and she is not the heir of Man Mohan Rai. Relevant portion of the finding is quoted below: ^^ okn fcUnq la[;k 2 D;k oknuh eueksgu jk; dh lxh ekrk gS vkSj ;fn gka rks D;k oknuh ekueksgujk; dh mRrjkf/kdkjh gS vkSj ;fn gka rks D;k fookfnr lEifRr esa 1@5 Hkkx gh ml okn fcUnq dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknuh ij gS bl fcUnq ij tks lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlesa ih0MCyw0 1 yhykorh oknuh gS ftUgksusa vius eq[; ijh{kk esa ih0MCyw0 2 pUnzdkark ,oa ih0MCyw0 3 “kf”kHkw’k.k us Hkh lkfcr djus dk fd;k uk vfHkys[kuh; lk{; i{kdkjksa dk miyC/k gks ldrk gSA og ifjokj jftLVj jk”kudkMZ vkfn dh udy gS vfHkys[kuh; lk{; esa oknuh dh vksj ls dkct la[;k 23 x dk;kZy; ftldk fuokZpu vf/kdkjh jftLVªkj dk;kZy; ls fuxZr izekf.kr izfrfyfi dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa dqy la[;k 340 ij eueksgu jk; dk uke xqy”ku jk; 341 uEcj ij dq’.kk “kekZ ifr dk uke eueksgu jk;] 342 uEcj ij yhykorh iRuh dqtyljk; ,oa 342 ij izdk”korh iRuh nqxkZnkl vafdr gSA mlls ;g fu’d’kZ fudyrk gS fd eueksgu jk; ds firk dk uke xqy”kujk; Fkk yhykorh ds ifr dk uke dqytljk; FkkA bl vfHkys[k dk voyksdu djus ls ;g fu’d’kZ fudyrk gS rFkk tSlk fd okni= dh /kkjk 3 esa dgk x;k fd eueksgu jk; “kekZ oknuh yhykorh dk iq= Fkk rdksZ ds le; oknuh ds vf/koDrk us crk;k fd xqy”kujk; dk iq= eueksgu jk; gqvk] ijUrq tks oknuh }kjk x 23 dkxt i=koyh ij miyC/k djk;k x;k gS mlds vuqlkj eueksgujk; ds firk dk uke xqy”kujk; vafdr gS mlh izdkj yhykorh ds ifr dk uke dqytljk; gS blls ;g fu’d’kZ fudyrk gS fd ;fn yhykorh esa ifr dk uke dqytljk; gS tSlk fd okni= dh /kkjk 3 esa dgk x;k gS rks eueksgu jk; vafdr gksuk pkfg, Fkk] ijUrq mlds vkxs xqy”kujk; gS blls ;g fu’d’kZ fudyrk gS fd eueksgu jk; yhykorh dk iq= ugha Fkk bl izdj.k ls “kq: ls gh fookfnr jgk gS fd oknuh og yhykorh ugha gS ftlds iq= dk uke eueksgu jk; Fkk rFkk yhykorh mldh L=h gS rFkk mldk igyk uke ;”kksnk Fkk ;g vfHkdFku Lo;a oknuh us izLrqr fd;k gS blfy;s blesa tks rF; vafdr gS og oknuh ij ckg~;dkjh gS Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ;fn dksbZ rF; vfHkdFkuh; lk{; lkfcr gS rks mlesa foijhr ekSf[kd dFkuksa dks lk{; ds ekU; ugha fd;k tk ldrk blh O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj esjk ;g fu’d’kZ gS fd oknuh eueksgu jk; dh lxh ekrk ugha gS rFkk lxh ekrk u gksus ds dkj.k mldh mRrjkf/kdkjh ugha gS u mldk 1@5 Hkkx fookfnr lEifRr esa gSA ** 12. While deciding the issue no. 3 as to whether the plaintiff has spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the cremation of Manmohan Rai, the trial Court has recorded a finding that on the basis of only spending the money on cremation, does not make one the heir of a person. 13. While deciding the issue no. 4 with regard to relief, the trial Court has recorded a finding that since the plaintiff has failed to prove his case, therefore, she is not entitled to get any relief from the court. 14. The trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 11.10.2001. 15. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2001 Smt. Leelawati Vs. Krishna Sharma and others. The appellant Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff/ appellant by confirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. Relevant part of the findings is quoted below: ^^ vc ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k okn eas of.kZr lEifRr ogha gS ftlesa oknuh }kjk eueksgu dh [kjhn “kqnk lEifRr crk;h x;h gS vihy esa oknuh dh vksj ls fodz;i= dh udy izLrqr dh x;h gSA oknuh ;g dsl ysdj vk;h gS fd eueksgu jk; dh [kjhn “kqnk lEifRr gSA [kjhn “kqnk lEifRr fodz;i= esa of.kZr dh x;h gSA og bl izdkj gS fd jke fdrk v?kVk edku iwjc eqgkuk ftlds Åij ,d dejk iwjc if”pe eqgkuk 10-8 QqV dk tks Jherh lq/kk lfjrk ifRu Lo0 ohjsnz dqekj ds ikl fdjk;s ij gS o ,d dejk tks cSd[kkus ds :Ik esa iwjc eqgkuk 10-8 QqV dk] ,d dejs o cSd[kkus ds vkxs ,d pcwrjk cuk gqvk gS o ,d vU; dksBjh mRrj eqgkuh 8-6 QqV ftlesa ikVhZ”ku cuh gqbZ gS] ,d LVksj :Ek mRrj eqgkuk 8-6 QqV dk iwjc eqgkuk vkxs lgu o ,d dejk mRrj eqgkuk 9-8 QqV o ,d doMZ cjkenk cuk gqvk gS vkSj vkxs lgu gS bl vgkrs esa nf{k.k dh vksj f[kMfd;ka cuh gSA ,d “kkSpky; o Lukukxkj jkosthuk cuk gS e; teqyk dk gd gdwd gj iqdkj dk e; vkjth rgrh ds uEcjh 75@1 ¼3½ cSy [kkuk tks xksfoUnjke dh fdjk;snkjh es gS og 75@1 ¼4½ gS tks fo’.kqnsoh dh fdjk;snkjh esa gS og 75@1 ¼1½ uk fodszrk ds dCts esa gS ftlesa dCtk fodzrk us dzsrk dks ns fn;k gS ij lEifRr fodz; i= ls dz; dh tkuh crk;h x;h gSA oknuh }kjk okni= ds cVokjs ds fy, crk;h x;h lEifRr dk fooj.k en v esa crk;h x;h gS ,d vgkrk ftldh nqdkus iwohZ Hkkx esa iwjc eqgkuh fufeZr gS vkSj ftlds Åij izFke ry ij ,d dejk] ckFk:e o ySVªhu fLFkr gS ;g mDr olh;r gS en v dh lEifRr fodz; i= dh lEifRr ls esy [kkrk gS fodz; i= esa izFke ry dh lEifRr dks iznf”kZr dh x;h gSA bl rjg ls mDr fodz; i= dh lEifRRk ls esy [kkrh gSA viuh izfrijh{kk esa oknuh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd eueksgu ds uke cSukek flQZ ,d eafty dk Fkk] Åijh eafty dk ugha FkkA bl rjg okni= esa foHkktu ds fy, crk;h x;h lEifRr ij lEifRr ugha gS ftldks okfnuh eueksgu jk; }kjk [kjhnuk crkrh gSA mijksDr foospuk ls ;g fu’d’kZ fudyrk gS fd fookfnr vihy es dksbZ cy ugha gS vihy cyghu gSA rn~uqlkj vihy lO;; [kkfjr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 16. While deciding the aforesaid appeal, the appellate court has taken into consideration the sale deed and has recorded a finding that the sale deed was for only one storey and no of the first storey and the property mentioned in the sale deed, which has been said to be purchased by Man Mohan Rai, therefore, the appellate court has not found force in the appeal and has dismissed the same. 17. Appellate Court has also come to the conclusion that the appellant is known as Yashoda and not Smt. Leelawati so as to claim the share of Manmohan Ram, who not his son. The findings are quoted below: ^^ vc ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k vihykFkhZ ;g Lohdkjus esa lQy jgh gS fd oknuh Jherh yhykorh eueksgu jk; dh lxh ekrk gS jSLiksUMsUV dk ;g dFku gS fd Jherh yhykorh dh “kknh igys jkepUnz ls gqbZ mldk uke ;”kksnk FkkA dqytljk; eueksgu jk; ds firk ds lkFk Jherh yhykorh dh “kknh gqbZ FkhA ysfdu eueksgu jk; ds iSnk gksus ds ckn yhykorh dh e`R;q gks x;hA ;”kksnk fo/kok gks x;h Fkh og crkSj iRuh dqytljk; esa jgus yxh FkhA dqytljk; ;”kksnk dks gh yhykorh dgus yxs vkSj mlh dk uke ckn esa yhykorh gks x;k blfy, yhykorh eueksgu jk; dh lxh ekrk ugha gSA eSa xzke iV~Vh ftyk ve`rlj dh csVh gwW esjk uke tUe dk ;”kksnk gS vkSj “kknh ls ejk uke yhykorh gS eueksgu jk; ds vykok esjs nks vkSj csVs Fks tks ej pqds gSaA dqytljk; ds vykok esjh “kknh fdlh vkSj ls ugha gqbZ Fkh eSus ernkrk lwph dh udy nk[ky dh gS ernkrk lwph esa esjk uke yhykorh gS oksVj fyLV esa yhykorh Hkh uke vc egRoiw.kZ ugha gS Lo;a vihykFkhZ yhykorh us ;g dgk gS fd esjk cpiu dk uke ;”kksnk vkSj “kknh ls esjk uke yhykorh gS iwjs Hkkjr esa ,slh dksbZ izFkk ugha gS fd “kknh gksus ij uke dks cny fn;k tk;s ;”kksnk ls D;ksa uke yhykorh ifjofrZr gqvk bldk dksbZ dkj.k mlds }kjk ugha crk;k x;k gS ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd mldk cpiu dk uke ;”kksnk gS bl xokg us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd dqytljk; dh cgu izdk”korh gSA** 18. In document 23 Ga, which has been issued by the Office of District Election Officer, the name of Man Mohan Singh, Krishna Sharma, Leelawati and Prakashwati have shown to the following effect: ^^340- 75@1 eueksgu jk; xqy”ku jk; iq0 22 341- d`’.kk “kekZ eueksgu jke e0 55 342- yhykorh dqy;”k jk; e0 80 343- izdk”korh nqxkZnkl e0 800** 19. As will appear from the aforesaid document, Leelawati has been shown to be the wife of Kulyash Rai, but not the mother of the Man Mohan Ram and he has been shown to be the son of Gulshan Rai, therefore, it appears that the mother of the appellant is not the mother of Manmohan. 20. The statement of Smt. Leelawati is quoted below:- ^^esjk uke tUe dk ;”kksnk gS vkSj “kknh ls esjk uke yhykorh gS** 21. As will appeal from the aforesaid admission that the plaintiff/ appellant is Yashoda and not Smt. Leelawati, therefore, both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff Since, the courts below have recorded finding of fact, therefore, I find no substantial question of law so as to interfere with the same. 22. However, it is made clear that in the event the appellant is residing in the premises with the consent of other co-shares, she will not be evicted except in accordance with law. 23. In H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa 2006 AIR SCW 715, the Apex Court has observed as under:- “Under Section 100 of the Code (as amended in 1976) the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the judgments of the courts below is confined to hearing on substantial questions of law. Interference with findings of fact by the High Court is not warranted if it involves re- appreciation of evidence.” 24. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and the Second Appeal is concluded by the findings of fact and deserves to be dismissed. 25. Consequently, Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 20.3.2008 Rathour