The court affirmed that findings of fact by lower courts are not to be interfered with unless substantial questions of law arise, emphasizing the distinction between a Will and an adoption deed.

This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2009 passed by District Judge, Hoshangabad (MP) in RCA No.5-A of 2008, arising out of judgment and decree dated 01.05.2008 passed in C.S.No.28-A of 2007, by 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Hoshangabad.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that Murat Singh had three sons namely Shambhu Singh, Gulab Singh and Bhujbal Singh and Prakashwati is wife of Shambhu Singh. Plaintiffs are descendant of Gulab Singh. Shambhu Dayal and his wife Prakashwati adopted Bhujbal Singh at the age of 7-8 years. Therefore, Bhujbal has no right in ancestral property. This is also clear from registered Will dated 21.12.1992.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Murat Singh had three sons namely Shambhu Singh, Gulab Singh and Bhujbal Singh and Shambhu Dayal died issueless. It is also urged that Will executed by Prakashwati wife of Shambhu Dayal document (Ex.D/2) in favour of Bhujbal Singh and Gulab Singh is to be construed as adoption deed and not as a Will. Shambhu Dayal and his wife had adopted Bhujbal Singh. Therefore, Bhujbal has no right in ancestral property. On above grounds, it is urged that in the instant appeal, substantial question of law as mentioned in the appeal memo, arises for determination.

Therefore, appeal be admitted for final hearing.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent submits that Courts below have rightly dismissed plaintiff suit and has rightly held that Ex.D/2’s document cannot be construed as adoption deed, it is a Will. Therefore, appeal filed by appellant be dismissed.

5 Heard. Perused record of the case. 6.Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 01.05.2008 passed in RCS No.28- A/2007 dismissed plaintiff suit and decreed defendants counter claim and appellate Court vide judgement dated 29.06.2009 passed in RCA No.5-A/2008 dismissed appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed trial Courts findings.

7.Therefore, question arises as to when this Court can interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the first appellate court/trial court. 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 vs. 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 vs. 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 was deciding the Second Appea