IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 58 of 2008 Muneshwar Prasad Kuthari & others … Appellants Vs Smt. Sushma Rawat & another … Respondents Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants Sri B.P.S. Mer, learned counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This second appeal arises out against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2008 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008, Muneshwar Prasad Kuthari & others Vs S.P. Kuthari & another as well as against the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2008 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellants for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.01.2000 and for permanent injunction from the property in question. The trial court after assessing all the evidence available on record dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2008. 3. The appellant/plaintiffs preferred the first appeal before the District Judge, Dehradun and the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.07.2008. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid both the judgments and decree, this second appeal has been preferred before this Court. 5. Heard Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri B.P.S. Mer, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the courts below have wrongly dismissed the suit against the evidence on record and provisions of law. In order to support his contention he has placed before me a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamla Prasad & others Vs Sri Krishna Kant Pathak & others reported in 2007-(004)-SCC-0213-SC. 7. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the view that the citation placed before me is not helpful to the appellants in this case in any manner. After having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the judgments and decree passed by the courts below, I do not find any infirmity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgments and decree passed by the courts below. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Santosh Hazari Vs Purushottam Tiwari reported in (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 179 has held that ‘a substantial question of law must be debatable, one which has not been settled earlier by statute or binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the outcome of the case.’ On the basis of the assessment of evidence on record, the trial court has come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 is the bonafide purchaser of the property in question and the power of attorney was executed by the plaintiffs/their ancestors in favour of respondent No. 2/defendant on 20.09.1993, on the basis of which, the defendant/respondent No. 2 executed the sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent No. 1 on 17.01.2000 and the appellate court affirmed this finding. Both the courts below have recorded their concurrent finding on this issue against the appellants. In the second appeal, the finding of fact concluded by both the courts below, howsoever erroneous may 3 be, cannot be interfered with. Moreover, I also find that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 8. Thus the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in-limine. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 13.08.2008 ASWAL