ORDER

1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 31.3.2017 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Shajapur in RCA No.20A/2014 whereby the first appellate Court has upheld the decree and judgment dated 29.3.2014 passed by First Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Shajapur in RCS No.32A/2013.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Sugrabai was owner of suit property and Sugrabai before her death i.e. in January, 2008 gave her share of suit property to the plaintiffs by way of 'Hiba' and also gave possession of suit property to the plaintiffs and since then, plaintiffs are in possession of suit property and they are cultivating the same. But after Sugrabai's death, defendants got mutated their names over suit property and plaintiffs were not informed about the same and on above grounds, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration, title and permanent injunction.

3. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29.3.2014 dismissed the suit filed of plaintiffs and appeal filed by plaintiffs against the judgment was also dismissed by Second Additional District Judge, Shajapur vide judgment dated 31.3.2017 passed in RCA No.20A/2014. Against this judgment, plaintiffs have filed this present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs have submitted that the basis of appellants/plaintiffs' tile is oral 'Hiba' made by Sugrabai in favour of appellants/plaintiffs. Learned counsel after referring to testimonies of plaintiffs' witnesses, especially PW-4 and PW-5 and relying upon judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Hafeeza Bibi and others v. Shaikh Farid (dead) by LRs and others, 2011 (5) SCC 654 submitted that in the instant case, all the three essential conditions required for a valid gift are fulfilled. Cross-examination by plaintiffs' witnesses reveal that there is no specific suggestion with respect to 'Hiba' has been given to plaintiffs' witnesses. Hence, testimony of plaintiffs' witnesses on 'Hiba' has substantially remained unchalleged in the cross-examination.

5. It is also urged that respondent/defendant did not file any suit/counter claim for declaration of title or recovery of possession. Ex.P-1 is of 2012 whereas, suit property was given in Hiba in the year 2008, therefore, Ex.P-1 does not affect Hiba made in the year 2008. On above grounds, it is urged that learned Courts below have not examined/assessed the evidence and pleadings in proper perspective. Therefore, findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse. Hence, substantial questions of law mentioned in the appeal memo arise in the instant case.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the Courts below have categorically held that initially/at the earliest, appellants/plaintiffs did not make any claim anywhere on oral Hiba made by Sugrabai in their favour of suit property. Further, in revenue Court also appellants/plaintiffs did not state that Sugrabai had given suit property to plaintiffs/plaintiffs vide oral 'Hiba'. Therefore, Courts below have rightly held that ground of 'Hiba' taken by appellants/plaintiffs is an after thought. Hence, Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit as well as the appeal filed by appellants/plaintiffs.

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

8. It is apparent from records of Courts below that it is a case of concurrent findings of facts i.e. both the Courts below have dismissed the suit/appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

9. 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 wi