LIMDI BAI Vs. TULSI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO Courts have decreed plaintiffs suit for declaration of title in plaintiffs favour, cancellation of sale-deed dated 7-2-1974 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and sale-deed dated 9-5-1980 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 and lastly for possession of suit house. It is against this concurrent decree the defendant No. 3, i. e. subsequent purchaser has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. It is against the impugned judgment/decree, dated 11-9-2001, passed by learned IVth Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, in C. A. No. 10-A of 2001, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 21-A of 1974, decided by Civil Judge, Class II, Sitamau, District Mandsaur, on 26-3-1991. The question that arise for consideration in this second appeal at the instance of defendant No. 3 is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC?

(2.) HEARD Shri P. K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Raunka, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in the appeal. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid and hence, the appeal has to be dismissed in limine.