Concurrent findings of fact can only be interfered with if they are found to be perverse or based on no evidence. High Court's jurisdiction in Second Appeal is limited to substantial questions of law.

ORDER :

1. Present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants – original plaintiffs against the concurrent findings of the learned courts below arising out of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. Factual matrix of the case is as under:

2.1. As per the case of the plaintiffs, the suit land was received by sale under Tenancy Act by the plaintiffs and their deceased uncle. Out of total land, land admeasuring HRA 00896 was in the share of the appellants and other land held had admeasuring HRA 00903 was in the share of the appellants’ uncle deceased Bhathibhai Jivabhai Gohel. That the appellants’ father and deceased Bhathibhai Jivabhai Gohel were real brothers. That Bhathibhai Jivabhai Gohel expired childness on 30/5/1998 and his wife Chanchalben expired on 27/2/2003, and hence the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of both the deceased. That the disputed land was handed over to the plaintiffs and since then the possession of the disputed land has been with the plaintiffs, but however, the defendant has unauthorisedly and fradulelty executed registered sale deed on 21/2/1992 in her favour. That when the sale deed was executed, Special Civil Suit No.131 of 1991 was pending with the court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Anand and during the pendency of the said suit, the defendant has executed three different sale deeds in her favour, which, according to the plaintiffs, are ab-initio null and void, and also barred by section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act. That the defenant on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds, the defendant is threatening the plaintiffs for vacating the lawful possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants.

2.2. The learned trial court after filing of the written statements by the defendant, framed necessary Issues in Regular Civil Suit No.249 of 2014 and 259 of 2014 which were consolidated and after adducing the evidence and evaluating documentary as well as oral evidence, the trial court dismissed both the suit vide order dated 31/3/2016. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the court of District Court, Anand being Regular Civil Appeal No.36 of 2016 and the learned 4the Additional District Judge, vide order dated 3/4/2019 dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial court, which has given rise to the present Appeal.

3. Heard Mr.Bhunesh Rupera, learned advocate for the appellants at length and examined the findings of both the courts below on the issues raised in the suit. Upon examination of the judgement and order of both the courts below, learned advocate for the plaintiffs - appellants is unable to point out any infirmity, perversity or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by both the courts below. Not only that the learned advocate for the appellant is unable to show that any finding recorded by the courts below is without any evidence or there is any illegality in the findings.

4. It is undispusted that the father of the plaintiffs and deceased uncle of the plaintiffs obtained the land which is suit property under the Tenancy Act and both the said persons became co-owners of the property wherein half portion had come in the share of the father of the plaintiffs and half of the portion came in the share of the uncle of the plaintiffs, who died on 30/5/1998 without any heir. Before his death, he had parted with his share and sold his share to the defendant for a legal consideration. It has also come on record in the findings that the original plaintiff was in the knowledge of the factual aspect and his brother sold his portion of land which had come to his share prior to his death. The partition is admitted and share came in the share of the uncle of the plaintiffs is also admitted. The uncle of the plaintiffs sold his share by registered sale deed. It has also come out in the cross examination that the plaintiff had knowle