A Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and does not permit the High Court to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the lower courts' findings are found to be legally perverse or without any evidentiary basis.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19/07/2005 passed by Second Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Mungaoli, District Guna, in Civil Appeal No. 1A/2003 as well as judgment and decree dated 04/02/2002 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungaoli, District Guna, in Civil Suit No. 6A/1999.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below.

3. It is not out of place to mention here that earlier this case was sent for mediation and the mediator has submitted his report that the mediation has failed.

4. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff Inkisar Mohammad filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that Natik Mohammad was the resident of Chanderi who expired in the intervening night of 23rd and 24th of October 1983. Plaintiff is the only son of Natik Mohammad whereas defendants No., 1 to 3 are his sisters and defendant No. 4 is the husband of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff was residing jointly with Natik Mohammad and was in cultivating possession of lands bearing registration survey Nos. 378, 382, 382/488, total area 1.254 hectares, situated in village Chiroli, Tahsil Mungaoli, District Guna and survey No. 58 area 1.233 hectares situated in town Chanderi. The silver ornaments are lying with the husband of defendant No. 2. Ruins (खंडहर) situated in Nai Khel Mohalla, Chanderi, was also one of the property left by his father. Since plaintiff was residing with his father and he was helping him out, therefore, his father wanted to execute a hiba in his favor, and accordingly, expressed his willingness to the plaintiff on 1/5/1982 which was accepted by the plaintiff and in presence of the Panchas, Natik Mohammad gave the aforesaid property by oral hiba. The property was also accepted by plaintiff and possession was also delivered to the plaintiff. Since then plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute in the capacity of a Bhumiswami. The ruins (खंडहर) situated in Nai Khel Mohalla, Chanderi, was also placed in actual possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had thereafter sold the ruins (खंडहर) to one Zahid Mohammad by registered sale deed dated 21/12/1982. Possession of the ornaments, which were kept with the husband of defendant No.2, were given in such a manner that whenever plaintiff would require, the husband of defendant No.2 shall return it to him. Accordingly, husband of defendant No.2 had also assured that the ornaments lying with him will remain with him as a trust and he would return as and when it is demanded by the plaintiff. On 23/05/1983, plaintiff had also deposited Rs. 10,000/- in the bank account of his father Natik Mohammad. Although the aforesaid amount was the personal property of plaintiff, but in view of the fact that his father had given the entire property in hiba to the plaintiff, therefore, for the satisfaction of his father, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by plaintiff in the bank account of his father Natik Mohammad. In the month of June 1983, health condition of Natik Mohammad deteriorated and on 01/07/1983, father of the plaintiff informed the plaintiff that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which he has deposited in the name of his father shall be treated to be the property of the plaintiff, and also gave that amount by hiba in presence of the witnesses and hiba was also accepted. Father of the plaintiff also expressed that from today onwards, he will not have any concern with the aforesaid amount and plaintiff would be the owner of t