ORDER S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a Plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Faizabad affirming that of tie Munsif, Faizabad, dismissing their suit for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by the Respondent Lakshman in favour of the Respondents Ram Ratti and Sahdeo is invalid and not binding on them. The Plaintiffs alleged that the plots in dispute were held jointly by them and the Defendant Lakshman as members of a Joint family; that the Lakshman had executed a deed of gift transferring the property to the Defendants Ram Ratti and Sahdeo; that he had no power to do this as the property was joint. They also contended that the gift was void as it was made after the village in which the land was situate had come under consolidation but the permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was not taken. They prayed for a declaration that the gift deed was void and not binding on them. The Defendants resisted the suit and denied that the property was joint and alleged that it had been partitioned about 50 years prior to the suit and the plots were allotted to the Defendant Lakshman as his exclusive property. They also alleged that Ram-Ratti' was the widowed daughter of Lakshman and Sahdeo her nephew by marriage. 2. The trial court found that the land was the exclusive property of Lakshman and that the gift was not void u/s 16-A of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. It dismissed the suit. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal but they did not challenge the finding that the land was the exclusive property of the Respondent Lakshman and only argued that the gift was void under the Consolidation of Holdings Act as it was made without permission. The learned Judge held that the gift, though made without permission, was not void and dismissed the appeal. 3. In second appeal it is argued that the view of the appellate court that the gift is not void is erroneous. But it was not necessary for me even to consider this point, as the trial court has found that the gifted property was owned by Lakshman and the Plaintiffs had no concern with it. The Appellants accepted this finding before the lower appellate court and it has become final. But it was not necessary for me even to consider this point, as the trial court has found that the gifted property was owned by Lakshman and the Plaintiffs had no concern with it. The Appellants accepted this finding before the lower appellate court and it has become final. Now, if the Appellants have no interest in the property they are not competent to interfere with Lakshman's disposition of property, or challenge it in court of law. If A makes a gift of his property to B, C cannot challenge it in Court unless he has an interest in the property. 4. Counsel contended that the Appellant are entitled to show that the gift is void for want of permission by the Settlement Officer as they had taken this plea in the lower court. I do not agree. This plea could be considered only after they had established that the property was joint and they had an interest in it. After the Court had found that they have no interest in it, their objection against the gift becomes incompetent. Section 9 of the CPC provides that the courts have jurisdiction "to try all suits of a civil nature." The words "suits of a civil nature" mean suits to enforce legal rights and the law court will not entertain suits by busy bodies with no interest to protect. 5. If a Plaintiff challenges a disposition of property by the Defendant on the ground that it is joint property and also that it was made in violation of some technical rule and the court finds that the property is exclusively owned by the Defendant, it should dismiss the suit without considering the second ground. 6. The appeal is dismissed.