Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is defendants second appeal in a suit for declaration and partition with possession. Appellants have lost in both the Courts below. ( 2. ) BRIEF but necessary facts, as found by the Courts below and which are relevant for this appeal, are as under. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein instituted aforesaid suit on allegation that the appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 to 4 are real sisters. They had inherited suit property; agriculture holdings situated in village Nandri, more particularly described in plaint from their father Cheanaji upon his death in the year 1988 and had equal share in the suit property along with their mother Mangibai. Taking advantage of old age of Mangibai, appellant no. 2, who is the husband of appellant No. 1 obtained a sale deed dated 27-11-1990 in his favour behind the back of plaintiff without any consideration. This fact came to their knowledge, when Mangibai died on 20-8-1991 and plaintiffs asked for the partition of the estate of Cheanaji. Since appellants resisted the demand and claimed exclusive ownership rights by virtue of the sale deed as aforesaid, that compelled plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration that sale deed was not binding upon them and they are entitled to obtain possession upon partition of the suit property in equal l/5th share. ( 3. ) APPELLANTS resisted claim for partition on the strength of registered sale deed in favour of appellant No. 1 which led to filing suit for declaration that sale deed executed by Mangibai was not binding upon them and they were entitled to obtain possession of their respective l/5th share upon partition. Upon refusal of agriculture holdings more particularly described in the plaint as suit property situated in village Nandri, were ancestral property, wherein they along with appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 4 had equal share along with their mother Late mangibai. In the written statement, appellants denied all material allegations of fact, but admitted that suit property was inherited upon death of Cheanaji who died in the year 1960 and not in the year 1988 as claimed by the plaintiff. Although respondents No. 5 and 6, who are the -son and widow of Balaji, elder brother of cheanaji, herein were not necessary party and no relief was claimed against them, but they were joined as defendants to avoid non-joinder of parties. Although respondents No. 5 and 6, who are the -son and widow of Balaji, elder brother of cheanaji, herein were not necessary party and no relief was claimed against them, but they were joined as defendants to avoid non-joinder of parties. In their written statement they also denied plaintiffs claim and set up an altogether different story but no counter-claim was lodged by them. With these pleadings parties went to trial and appellants and respondents No. 1 to 3 only adduced evidence. ( 4. ) INITIALLY, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 19-3-1996 dismissed the suit but in appeal judgment was set aside and case was remanded by the lower Appellate Court with the direction to give a finding on the death of cheanaji, after amending pleadings and further evidence thereon as may be adduced by the parties. Pursuant to remand order appellants carried out amendment in their written statement. Pursuant to the remand order appellants and respondents adduced further evidence. After appreciating the evidence, trial court found that suit property upon death of Cheanaji in the year 1988, was jointly inherited by his widow Mangibai along with daughters being Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and they were in possession jointly and further that Mangibai alone had no right to sell away the entire suit property in favour of appellant No. 2. Such a sale to the extent of their share was not binding upon respondents No. 1 to 4 and as such, they were entitled to obtain possession of their respective share upon partition, and accordingly decreed the suit. Appellants challenged the said judgment and decree before the first appellate court without success, hence this appeal as stated hereinabove. ( 5. ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the appellants at great length and going through record of the Courts below, in the opinion of this Court, plaintiffs had adduced cogent evidence to establish their claim. Indisputably, Cheanaji died intestate after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. ( 5. ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the appellants at great length and going through record of the Courts below, in the opinion of this Court, plaintiffs had adduced cogent evidence to establish their claim. Indisputably, Cheanaji died intestate after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The properties of Cheanaji, upon his death, therefore, would devolve upon the class I legal heirs specified in Schedule I. The widow Mangibai and five daughters, all of them were class I legal heirs of Cheanaji, they, therefore, inherited suit property jointly, in this view of the matter, sale deed executed by Mangibai in favour of appellant No. 2 was not binding on plaintiffs and respondent No. 4 herein. In arriving at these findings, Courts below have committed no illegality and such finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record. As has been pointed out hereinabove, there is sufficient relevant and cogent evidence on which finding of facts are based. In the considered opinion of this Court, this appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law so as to warrant interference with the finding of fact which cannot be said to be perverse. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. No material evidence has been overlooked nor any inadmissible evidence has been considered to come to such findings and as such there is no scope for interference in such findings of fact. See Ishwar Das Jain vs. Sohanlal, AIR 2000 SC 426 . It is not a case of misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice. Neither it is a case of no evidence and thus, the findings are not perverse to invite the interference by this court, hence such findings being unassailable are confirmed in this second appeal. ( 6. ) IN view of the aforesaid, no interference can be made with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Thus, there is no merit and substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed summarily but no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.