JUDGMENT : Itis undisputed fact on record that the alleged family arrangement in which theprincipal plaintiff got the disputed property in his share has not beenchallenged by any coparcener of their joint Hindu family between whom suchpartition had taken place. So, the appellant being stranger for such partition, did not have any authority to challenge the sameon any of the grounds. In any case, for the sake of arguments, if the propertywas belonging to the joint Hindu family in which the deceased plaintiff was alsoone of the coparcener, then, being co- parcenor , hewas the co-owner of the property and, therefore, he had a right to file thesuit for eviction against the appellant and, in such premises, he was obligedto prove only the relationship of landlord and tenant with appellant. As perconcurrent findings of the courts below, such relationship has been found to beproved. Thus, in view of the settled legal proposition of the law laid down bythe Apex Court in the matter of Kalyan Singh Vs. Ramswaroop and another-1996 JLJ-247, the concurrentfindings based on appreciation of evidence on the question of relationship aslandlord and tenant between the parties, being findings of fact, could not beinterfered with under section 100 of the CPC at the stage of second appeal.Such principle is further followed by this court in the matter of Machala Bai Vs .Nanak Ram-2006(2) MPLJ-484. So, on such question, this appeal is not involvingany substantial question of law. Besidesthe above, the appellant being stranger did not have any right to challenge thetitle of the respondents or their predecessor with respect of the premises thusthe argument advanced by the appellant's counsel on the basis of Stamp Act andthe Registration Act, are not helping him. Even otherwise, in view of theaforesaid discussion, if it is deemed that respondents had a limited title overthe property then, being stranger with respect of title of the property theappellant did not have any right to challenge the same in any manner.