ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal is by the plaintiffs, who have lost in both the Courts. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiffs filed the suit inter-alia on the ground that the land bearing survey No.975 admeasuring .624 hectares and land bearing survey No.976 admeasuring .833 hectares were ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.4 to 6 and 8 to 11 and in partition, the suit land was allotted to the plaintiffs' father namely Ghasiram and the name of brother of Ghasiram was mutated in the revenue records. After the death of plaintiffs' father, the suit property devolved on them. However, the defendants No.1 to 3 and 12 asserted their title in respect of the suit property on the basis of sale deed allegedly executed by plaintiffs' uncle namely Sukhai. Thereupon, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. 4. The defendants No.1 to 3 filed the written statement in which inter-alia the claim of the plaintiffs was denied. It was further pleaded that the suit land is not the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, but the same belongs to Devi Singh i.e. father of defendants No.1 to 3 and 12. After the death of Devi Singh, the suit property devolved on them. It was further pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3 and 12 are in possession of the suit land for the past about 40 years as owner thereof. 5. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The aforesaid decree has been affirmed in appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding and the consequent decree. 7. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. Both the Courts below on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record have held that Mathi Bai (PW 1) in her cross-examination has admitted that no document has been filed to show that the land belongs to her father-in-law. It has further been admitted by her that the land in question was never recorded in her husband's name. Both the Courts below on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record have held that Mathi Bai (PW 1) in her cross-examination has admitted that no document has been filed to show that the land belongs to her father-in-law. It has further been admitted by her that the land in question was never recorded in her husband's name. Pyarelal (PW 2) in his evidence has admitted that Devi Singh i.e. father of defendants No.1 to 3 and 12 was in cultivating possession of the suit land for the past about 25 years. The Courts below have held that plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit property was allotted to them in partition. The aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Courts below which are concurrent in nature, are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can either be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to dislodge that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, which are concurrent in nature are either perverse or based on no evidence. It is well settled in law that this Court in exercise of power under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot re-appreciate the evidence even if another view is possible. 8. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact is well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. This Court in exercise of power under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. See: Narayanan Rajendran and another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others (2009) 5 SCC 264 , Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and others (2011)7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012)8 SCC 148 , D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa (2011)1 SCC 158 , Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012)7 SCC 288 and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead) by LR. v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs. and others, (2013)7 SCC 173 . 9. For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.