JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is defendants' Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'). 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs who are the successors of Amir Jan and Amir Jan was son of Potan Miyan. Amir Jan, Hasan Mohammad, Gulabuddin and Mohammad Ali were in joint possession and the plaintiffs are entitled for ½ share in the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted decree for declaration. Defendants preferred first appeal which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court against which this Second Appeal has been preferred. 4. Shri J.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below holding Amir Jan to be the son of Potan Miyan is perverse and no decree for declaration could have been granted in absence of relief for partition and possession. 5. The two Courts below on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record have concurrently held that Amir Jan was son of Potan Miyan, it is concurrent finding of fact based on evidence available record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. 6. The trial Court and First Appellate Court have not committed any legal error in granting decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiffs in which I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. No other points were raised. 7. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal, S/o Sitaram Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 , has held that High Court should not disturb the concurrent finding of fact, unless finding recorded is perverse being based on no evidence. Para-36 & 37 of report as under:- "36. In Major Singh v. Rattan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 546 : AIR 1997 SC 1906 it has been observed that when the Courts below had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the reasons given by the Courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 37. 37. In Vidhyadhan v. Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573 it has been ruled that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. We may note here that solely because another view is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdictions under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been fortified by the decisions of this Court in Abdul Raheem v. Karnataka Electricity Board, (2007) 14 SCC 138 : AIR 2008 SC 956 . 8. Keeping in view, the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below is based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 9. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage.