ORDER

1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2021 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Khargone (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.15/2017, whereby dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-2, Khargone passed in Regular Civil Suit No.53- A/2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff Munnibai filed a suit for declaration of title, partition, mesne profit, permanent injunction and delivery of possession on the ground that plaintiff and defendants are real brothers/sisters/mother and suit property were of their father/husband Narayan's owernship. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share of the suit property.

3. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 9.3.2017decreed the suit of plaintiff and appeal filed against this judgment by appellants/defendants was also dismissed by appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.10.2021 passed in RCA No.15/2017. Against this, present second appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has submitted that plaintiff in his statement Ex.D/6, which was recorded before Tehsildar, has admitted that she has received her share in the property but learned trial Court as well as appellate Court has completely ignored Ex.D/6. It is also urged that Tehsildar's order Ex.D/5 regarding partition of suit property has never been challenged by the plaintiff anywhere. In para-14, the learned trial Court and in para-15, appellate Court have drawn conclusions which are against the evidence on record. On above grounds, it is urged that substantial questions of law, as mentioned in the appeal memo, arises in the instant case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and have perused the records of Courts below.

6. It is apparent from the records of Courts below that it is a case of concurrent findings of facts i.e. trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff and appeal filed by appellants/defendants was dismissed by appellate Court.

7. Therefore, question arises as to when this Court can interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. In this connection, I would like to refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Chandrabhan (Deceased) through Lrs. And Others v. Saraswati and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4601, wherein Hon'ble apex Court in para 33(iii) has held as under:-

“33 (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well - recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision” based on no evidence”, it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding”.

8. Similarly in the case of Gurnam Singh (Dead) by legal representatives and Others v. Lehna Singh (Dead) by legal representatives, Hon'ble apex Court has held as under:-

“13.1.......However, in Second Appeal under section 100 of the CPC, the High Court, by impugned judgment and order has interfered with the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. While interfering with the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court, it appears that while upsetting the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court has again appreciated the entire evidence on record, which in exercise of powers under section 100 CPC is not permissible. While passing the impugned judgment and order, it appears that High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that the High Court wa