Judgment :- 1. This is the plaintiff's Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. 2. The appellant herein filed a suit for declaration in respect of the residential house and for consequential relief of injunction. He claimed ownership of the suit house based on the oral hiba (gift) stated to have been made by the deceased Saleem (original defendant No.1) on 6.5.2006. Both the Courts below on evaluation of the material on record have concurrently concluded that there is no delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff and that therefore hiba is not proved. 3. I have perused the records. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 will not be of any use to the appellant inasmuch as they do not show that possession is handed over to him by defendant No.1 - Saleem. The alleged hiba has taken place on 6.5.2006, whereas Saleem expired on 7.8.2006. The plaintiff himself filed an application to enter his name in the municipal records in respect of the residential house. On the basis of such application, the Municipality ordered to enter the name of the plaintiff as is clear from Ex.P1. There is nothing in Ex.P1 to show that the application is made by the plaintiff on the basis of oral hiba. Nowhere in Ex.P1 it is stated that the property is gifted in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover Ex.P1 came into existence on 5.7.2006 i.e., just one month prior to the death of owner of the property viz., Saleem. Saleem was very much alive at the time of filing of the suit. However, during the course of trial, Saleem expired. It is not in dispute that Saleem continued in possession of the property till his death. Had he handed over possession in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff would have definitely entered house and would have lived there. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 have come into existence just within short period prior to the death of Saleem. Be that as it may, the Courts below on facts have rightly concluded that there is no delivery of possession by Saleem in favour of the plaintiff and consequently dismissed the suit. No question of law muchless substantial question of law arises in this appeal. This appeal is filed to re- appreciate the facts, which is not permissible. Moreover the Courts below have appreciated the facts in the proper perspective. No question of law muchless substantial question of law arises in this appeal. This appeal is filed to re- appreciate the facts, which is not permissible. Moreover the Courts below have appreciated the facts in the proper perspective. Hence no interference is called for. Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed at the stage of admission.