JUDGMENT

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff are as under: -

"1. Whether the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court that the appellant/plaintiff is not the daughter of deceased Nanh, is perverse ?

2. If the answer to question No.1 is in negative, whether the defendant can lawfully succeed to the property belonging to late Nanh ?"

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court.)

2. The suit property was originally held by Nanh. The plaintiff claimed that she is daughter of Nanh out of his wedlock with Bundeli and therefore, she has inherited the property left by Nanh, but she has been dispossessed by defendant No.1 forcibly, as such, she is entitled for declaration of title that she is exclusive owner of the suit property and entitled for possession of the suit property.

3. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating inter-alia that Bundeli was married with Dukhi and out of that marriage, Bundeli had two daughters namely Rambai & Prembai. Prembai has already been died, as such, Nanh had never married with Bundeli and therefore, the plaintiff not being daughter of Nanh is not entitled to succeed the property left by Nanh.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 26.9.91, held that the plaintiff is daughter of Nanh and entitled to succeed the property left by Nanh and granted decree for declaration of title and delivery of possession, which the first appellate Court interfered with in appeal taken by defendant No.1 and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Questioning that judgment and decree, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, in which substantial questions of law have been formulated and set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mrs.Meena Shashtri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in reversing the well merited and well reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that the plaintiff is daughter of Nanh and therefore, she is entitled to succeed the property of Nanh, as such, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court deserves to be set aside being perverse and the judgment and decree of the trial Court be restored. She relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sudama Prasad v. Ashok Kumar, (2007) 15 SCC 554 .

6. Mr.Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1, would support the impugned judgment and decree and submit that the first appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Nanh and therefore, she is not inherited the property of Nanh, as such, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Sitaji and others v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary and others, (1954) AIR SC 601 , Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra & others, (1959) AIR SC 914 .

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff is daughter of Nanh and as such, she has succeeded to the property left by Nanh, which has been interfered with by the first appellate Court by holding that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Nanh, therefore, she is not entitled to inherit the property left by Nanh.

9. The question of consideration would be whether finding recorded by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Nanh is a perverse finding open to interfere