The appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law, affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact regarding property title and possession.

ORDER

The appellant/defendant No.9 has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging judgment and decree dated 06/11/2024 passed by the Sixth District Judge, District- Gwalior in RCA No.48/2023, whereby learned Appellate Court has has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20/12/2022 passed by the Fifth Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in RCSA No.2400012A/2015.

[2]. The facts which are not in dispute between the parties are that one Baijnath Sharma and Smt. Kasturi Bai had nine children (since 6 sons and 3 daughters). The defendant no.1 to 9 are the children of Baijnath Sharma and Smt. Kasturi Bai while plaintiff no.1 is the wife of defendant no.8 and plaintiff no.2 is the son of defendant no.4. It is also not in dispute that Baijnath Sharma has expired on 16/05/2005 while Smt. Kasturi Bai has expired on 16/03/2006.

[3]. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration of their title over suit property, possession and damages against the defendants inter-alia on the ground that the suit house consists of two parts viz. House No.290 & 291. It is their case that House No.290 was purchased by plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 30/03/1998 from its earlier owner Mohan Kumar Khatri. It is further pleaded that House No.291 was purchased by Smt. Kasturi Bai vide registered sale deed dated 12/03/1976 and was later on bequeathed by her in favour of plaintiff no.1 on 20/09/2005. It is also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendants- Ashok, Mahesh and Arvind were allowed to occupy the portion of the suit house, however, when they started disputing plaintiffs' ownership, they were asked to vacate the premises by serving notice to them. The plaintiffs have alleged that defendants are encroachers in the suit house. When they failed to hand over the possession, the present suit was filed.

[4]. The defendants no.1 & 2 filed separate written statement denying the plaint allegations. In substance, they pleaded that the suit property was purchased out of earnings of Joint Hindu Family property and neither Smt. Kasturi Bai nor the plaintiff- Smt. Rajni had any source of income to purchase the suit property. They asserted that they are the co-owner of the property and are in joint possession with all other co-sharers. They also pleaded that Mohan Kumar Khatri had no title over the suit property and the sale deed dated 30/03/1998 executed in favour of the plaintiff is ineffective. The defendants also disputed the will executed by Kasturi Bai in favour of Plaintiff Rajni.

[5]. The defendant no.3 to 5 & 8 filed their written statements and accepted the plaintiffs' claim. The appellant/defendant no.9 filed his written statement and also lodged a counter claim claiming 1/9th share in the suit property. The learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has decreed the plaintiffs' suit and passed the decree of declaration and possession in their favour. The counter claim filed by defendant no.9 is dismissed by both the courts. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by both the courts, the defendant no.9 has, filed the present appeal.

[6]. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to substantial questions of law proposed in the memo of appeal and have argued that the appeal deserves to be admitted on all the 15 questions of law proposed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the questions of law as proposed in the memo of appeal are required to be considered. The discussion on each question of law proposed by appellant in his memo of appeal is as under:

(i). Whether, the impugned judgement and decree dated 06.11.2024 & 08.11.2024 has not been pa