Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed in second appeals unless substantial questions of law are presented.

This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 23/04/2015 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 03-A/2014 by Court of District Judge, Betul, District Betul (M.P.), whereby learned District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement and decree dated 20/12/2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Betul to the Court of First Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Betul (M.P.). Civil Suit No. 2-A/2011, whereby suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for declaration of title of suit land through will dated 04/03/1986 executed in favour of respondent No.1 and to issue permanent injunction against appellants from interference in peaceful possession of respondent No.1 in suit property has been decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, possession holder and permanent injunction regarding land bearing Khasra No. 177 measuring 2.569, 212, measuring 0.176, 338/1 measuring 1.171, 338/2 measuring 1.220, 314 measuring 2.185, 333 measuring 0.991 total seven lands measuring

9.478 hectares situated at village Rampurmaal, Tehsil Shahpur, District Betul (M.P.) against Dhunni and Phoolchand. Plaintiff’s case before the trial Court is that Dhobi was the head of family and after death of Dhobi his entire property mutated in the name of his two children namely Machal and Dhunni. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 is daughter of defendant No.1 and since Machal had no issue, therefore, at the age of 4-5 year, he has adopted her according to custom and rites, since then she is residing with Machal as his daughter. Machal has executed a “will” in favour of plaintiff and after his death, the lands in question mutated in her name on the basis of “will” (Ex. P/6 dated 04/03/1986), vide order dated 10/12/1988 and Rin-Pustika has also been prepared. The order passed by Tehsildar has been challenged before Sub-Divisional Officer by appellant/defendant No.1 Dhunni by saying that land bearing Khasra No. 177 measuring 2.589 hectare was purchased by her father Dhobi in the name of Machal, therefore, she had equal share in the said land. The SDO has set aside the order dated 10/12/1988 passed by Tehsildar and remanded the matter to decide the same in accordance with law. The Tehsildar vide order dated 18/11/2010 has directed the respondent No.1/plaintiff to return the land bearing Khasra No. 177 measuring 2.589 hectare to defendant No.1 and further directed to mutate the other lands in joint name of plaintiff and defendant No.2. Hence, plaintiff/respondent No.1 has filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the basis of “will” executed in her favour.

3. Appellants have filed written statement jointly and denied the averments mentioned in the plaint by saying that the name of appellants/defendants was recorded in Khasra No. 177 in revenue record and other lands are recorded in the revenue records in the name of plaintiff alongwith with co-owners and they are necessary parties in the present case, therefore, the suit is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of parties. Appellants have also denied the factum of adoption of plaintiff/respondent No.1 by Machal and also denied the execution of will in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 and prays for dismissal of the suit.

4. Learned trial Court after framing of the issues and recording of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties of the case, found the plaintiff’s case proved and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, against which appellants/defendants preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned judgement. Being aggrieved by impugned judgement, present second appeal has been preferred.

5. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the first appellant Court on various subst