ORDER 1. The appellant/plaintiff has directed this appeal under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2004 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Regular Appeal No. 5-AJ 2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2004 passed by 4th Civil Judge Class-II, Betul in Civil Original Suit No. 43-AJ03, whereby his suit for declaration and injunction was decreed against the respondent No.1 to 3 only in part. 2. The appellant/plaintiff through his wife, the power of attorney holder, filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent No.1 to 3 contending that he after purchasing the land bearing Khasra No. 451 area 0.028 hector in the name of his the then minor, sons Sahebrao and Ajayabrao vide sale deed dated 4.2.1983, constructed a residential house for his family. Subsequent to it he also purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 970/1 and No. 971/1 total area 0.482 hector in the name of aforesaid both the sons in their minority vide sale deed dated 3rd and 4th April 1986. As per further averments his son Sahebrao got married with one Vakubai but due to his mental illness she was not residing with him and used to reside with her parental family. Sahebrao died on 2.6.2000. As per further averments Sahebrao was neither married with respondent No.1 Kalabai nor she resided with him as wife. Subsequent to death of Sahebrao without giving any intimation to the appellant mutated their names on the aforesaid property and pursuant to that they are trying to swallow the property of the appellant illegally. In such premises the appellant has filed the suit declaring the aforesaid mutation of the respondent No.1 to 3 illegal and ab-initio void and the same is not binding against the appellant with further prayer to issue perpetual injunction restraining the respondents No.1 to 3 from any interference in the possession of the appellant with respect of the aforesaid property. 3. In the written statement of the respondent No.1 to 3, it is stated that the respondent No.1 got married with Sahebrao on 20.9.1996 at Multai and out of such wedlock they were graced by one son and one daughter respondent No.2 and 3 respectively. Sahebrao was not the mentally ill person. Although earlier he got married with Vakubai but she left the matrimonial home just after one year of the marriage and resided separately. Sahebrao was not the mentally ill person. Although earlier he got married with Vakubai but she left the matrimonial home just after one year of the marriage and resided separately. After death of Sahebrao the respondents No.1 to 3 were ousted by the appellant from the home, their names are not mutated in the record of rights under any conspiracy but the same was carried out in accordance with the prescribed procedure taking into consideration that they are the legal heirs of Sahebrao. The suit is filed on false averments. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made. 4. After framing the issues and recording the evidence on appreciation of the same, the suit of the appellant was decreed in part holding that Sahebrao was the mentally ill person and the aforesaid properties were purchased by the appellant in the name of his minor sons from the fund of joint Hindu family. The alleged marriage of respondent No. 1 Kalabai with Sahebrao was held to be ab-initio void; as the same was carried out in the life time of the first wife contrary to Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, but simultaneously the respondent No.2 and 3 being illegitimate children of Sahebrao from Kalabai are held to be entitled for the share in the property of Sahebrao. Being dissatisfied with such decree the appellant filed the appeal under Section 96 of CPC, on consideration by affirming the decree of the trial Court the same was dismissed, on which the appellant has come forward with this appeal. 5. Shri A.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant by referring the pleadings, evidence and exhibited documents on record, argued that in the lack of any admissible and reliable evidence the respondent No.2 and 3 have been held to be the children of late Sahebrao from respondent No.1 Kalabai by the Courts below while in view of the available evidence it was not proved that Kalabai got married with Sahebrao at any point of time and out of such wedlock the respondent No.2 and 3 are born. He further said that contrary to the available evidence the disputed property is held to be the joint Hindu Family Property while the same has been proved to be the self acquired property of the appellant, as the same was purchased by him from his personal fund. He further said that contrary to the available evidence the disputed property is held to be the joint Hindu Family Property while the same has been proved to be the self acquired property of the appellant, as the same was purchased by him from his personal fund. In such premises he said that the learned Court below ought to have decreed his suit in its entirety against the respondent No.1 to 3 and prayed for admission of this appeal on the proposed substantial questions of law mentioned in the appeal memo. 6. Having heard the counsel at length, I have carefully examined the record along with the judgments of both the Courts below. It is apparent from the record that on appreciation of the evidence including the admission of the appellant Govind (P.W.1) and his wife Shantabai (P.W.3) made in their depositions it was concurrently held by both the Courts that late Sahebrao got married with respondent No.1 and out of such relation the respondent No.2 and 3 are born but such marriage with respondent No.1 has been decjared to beab-initio void as the same was carried out in the life time of Vakubai the duly wedded wife of Sahebrao. In such premises, the respondent No. 1 was not held to be entitled for any share in the property. But however, in view of the provision of Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and of the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Vidyudeep v. Smt. Subhadrabai reported in ( 1999 (1) MPLJ 403 ) the respondents No.2 and 3 being illegitimate children of Sahebrao from respondent No.1 Kalabai are held to be entitled for the share of their father in the above mentioned property and in such premises the 'share of the appellant in such property has been decided by both the Courts below. Such findings being based on admissible evidence and also is inconformity with law could not be interfered at this stage in second appeal, as the same is not giving rise to any substantial question of law. 7. Apart the above, the appellant himself has admitted in his deposition that the aforesaid property was purchased by him in the name of Sahebrao and Ajayabrao from the fund and income of joint Hindu family. 7. Apart the above, the appellant himself has admitted in his deposition that the aforesaid property was purchased by him in the name of Sahebrao and Ajayabrao from the fund and income of joint Hindu family. In such premises, it was held by the Courts below that the same is acquired for the Joint Hindu Family, and after the death of Sahebrao the respondent No.2 and 3 being his natural heirs are entitled for their shares in the property. In the available circumstance holding the property of joint Hindu family property being findings of facts cannot be interfered at this stage. 8. It is settled proposition of law that concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of admissible evidence howsoever erroneous cannot be interfered, at the stage of Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC as laid down by the Apex Court in atter of 'Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar" reported in AIR 1999 SC 2213 . 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal does not involve any question of law much less the substantial question of law, which called any interference under Section 100 of CPC at this stage. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merits, the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. 10. The appeal is dismissed as indicated above.