The High Court can only entertain a Second Appeal on a substantial question of law and has no jurisdiction to entertain it on the ground of erroneous findings of fact.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – original defendant against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below arising out of the suit declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The facts as could be culled-out from the memo of the appeal are as under:

2.1 That the respondent – plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and grant of permanent injunction stating that the appellant no.1 residing with his son-in-law – opponent no.2. The respondent – plaintiff purchased the suit property from one Rashidabibi Mohamad Azam Valjiwala by a registered sale deed dated 9th September, 1998 for a sale consideration of Rs.32,000/-. As per the case of the respondent – plaintiff, the suit property was given by her mother’s father – Latifbhai Rahimbhai Rajebhai in the year 1961 and her mother sold the said property to Rasidabibi Mo. Aajam Valjiwala by registered Sale Deed dated 27th December, 1993 for consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- because her maternal uncles were not maintained her mother and thereafter Rasidabibi resided there with her family and her mother lives in rental house.

2.2 Thereafter, on 9th September, 1998 the property was purchased by respondent – plaintiff from Rashidabibi and thereafter, the husband of the respondent – plaintiff died on 19th September, 2009. The suit property was given to the appellant no.1 for residence purpose as a permissive user because the respondent and the appellant no.1 are sister-in-laws.

2.3 As the appellant no.1 – original defendant no.1 started demolishing the suit property and constructions of new building at the instigation of appellant no.2 – original defendant no.2 without the prior permission of the Nagarpalika, the respondent – plaintiff and her son objected and requested the appellant no.1 to stop the construction. Applications were also to the Commissioner of HUDA, Collector, Himmatnagar and Chief Officer Nagarpalika, Himmatnagar to stop the illegal and unauthorised construction and the Nagarpalika, Himmatnagar has visited the said place and given notice on 10th July, 2013 to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction on suit property and as being an owner of the suit property the notice was served upon the respondent – plaintiff. As the respondent – plaintiff had purchased the suit property and her name continued in the record of City Survey and she paid the tax of the suit property, the appellant no.1 – defendant no.1 tried to snatch away the possession of the suit property from the respondent – plaintiff. Therefore, the respondent – plaintiff has field the suit being Regular Civil Suit no.61 of 2013 for declaration and injunction.

2.4 The summons were issued to the appellant no.1 – defendant no.1. The written statement of the appellant no.1 – defendant no.1 has been filed at Exh.22 denying the entire facts averred by the respondent – plaintiff. The issues were framed accordingly by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit no.61 of 2013 and after appreciating the pleadings and evidence both oral, as well as, documentary, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent – plaintiff on 30th June, 2018.

2.5 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellants – defendants have preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal no.24 of 2018, wherein the Principal District Judge, Himmatnagar vide order dated 30th August, 2019 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court which has given rise to the present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants – defendants and Ms. Meena Vyas, learned advocate on caveat for the respondents – plaintiffs.

4. I have examined the findings of both the Courts below on the issue raised in the suit.

5. It is contended by Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate for the appellants that the appellant no.1 was residing in the suit property since last 40 years with family, who died on 1st February, 2005. The original owner o