The High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact by lower courts unless they ignore material evidence or draw erroneous conclusions.

This second appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2021 passed by Principal District Judge Harda, District Harda in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/2021, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.17A/2018.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction etc. on the ground that Kanhaiya Lal and Anokhi Lal were real brothers and plaintiff is daughter of Anokhi Lal whereas defendants are heirs of Kanhaiya Lal. The disputed property is ancestral / joint property of Kanhaiya Lal and Anokhi Lal. It was purchased by Kanhaiya Lal and Anokhi Lal from sale proceeds received after sale of family property. Plaintiff and defendants are residing in half -half share of the suit property.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, after referring to judgment passed by the Courts below as well as evidence adduced by appellant, submits the from the evidence on record it is clearly established that the suit property is joint property of plaintiff as well as defendants and it was purchased by their predecessors i.e. real brothers Kanhaiya Lal and Anokhi lal. The learned Courts below have wrongly dismissed the plaintiff's suit as well as appeal whereas from the evidence on record it is established that plaintiff is residing in half share of the suit property. On the above grounds, it is urged that substantial questions of law as mentioned in appeal memo arise for determination. Hence, appeal be admitted for final hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit as well as appeal. No interference is required in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, the appeal be dismissed.

5. Heard. Perused record of the case. 6. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 12.01.2021 passed in RCS No.17-A/2018 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2021 passed in RCA No.4/2021 dismissed plaintiff's appeal and affirmed trial Court's 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 Co