Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2008, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 42/2005,144/2005, affirming the judgment and decree dated 2.12.2002, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in civil Suit No.41/93,134/93, whereby suit for declaration and joint possession as a consequential relief, having been filed by the appellants/plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed suit for declaration and joint possession as a consequential relief, averring therein that land comprising in Khewat No.83, Khatauni No.88, Khasra Nos. 2249, 2251, 2253, 2254, 2256, 2303, 2314, 2315, 2320, 2322, 2325, 2326, 2327, 2329, 2332, 2335, 2348, 2350, 2380, 2402, 2432, 2436, 2440, 2442,2446, 2458, 2459, 2473, 2475, 2477, 2478, 2487, 2516, 2531, 2543, 2551,2555, 2557, 2563, 2568, 2585, 2589 and 2602, measuring 27-10-3 bighas, situated in village Leda, Illaqua Bagra, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property and plaintiff alongwith defendants being coparceners of this property have right in the entire property as coparceners. Plaintiff further averred that defendant No.3 has gifted the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 by registered gift deed, dated 21.11.1992, which was registered on 22.1.1993 solely with a view to deprive him from his right to the suit land. Plaintiff further claimed that defendant No. 3 has no right to make any gift of the suit land as the suit land is ancestral and the plaintiff is member of the Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff sought declaration that the gift deed, executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, is null and void and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also sought consequential relief in the shape of decree of joint possession. 3. Defendants No. 1 and 3 by way of written statements refuted the claim of the plaintiff taking therein objections of maintainability, cause of action and valuation etc. Plaintiff also sought consequential relief in the shape of decree of joint possession. 3. Defendants No. 1 and 3 by way of written statements refuted the claim of the plaintiff taking therein objections of maintainability, cause of action and valuation etc. Defendants averred in the written statement that the suit property is self acquired property of defendant No.3 and is not a Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property. Defendants further contended that defendant No.3 has every right to gift the suit land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Defendants further claimed that plaintiff is residing in the house of his in-laws for the last 30-35 years and he has already got about 35-40 bighas of land from his father-in-law. Defendants further claimed that plaintiff never tendered his services towards his father, defendant No.3 and he has no affection towards him. Defendants further claimed that plaintiff misbehaved and gave beatings to defendant No.3, as a result of which, defendant No.3 lodged the complaint against him at Police Station, Balh. In the facts and circumstances, as narrated above, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. 4. Defendant No.2 also contested the suit of the plaintiff by way of filing separate written statement, stating therein that gift made by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is valid and legal and plaintiff has no right to file the present suit and as such, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the gift deed dated 21.11.1992 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant No.1 and 2 is illegal and void as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Relief:- 6. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the material adduced on record by the respective parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2002. 7. OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Relief:- 6. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the material adduced on record by the respective parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2002. 7. Being, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 2.12.2002, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 CPC in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.42/2005, 144/2005, however fact remains that aforesaid appeal having been filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed, as a result of which, judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid back ground, appellants/plaintiff approached this Court by way of instant appeal, praying therein for decreeing his suit after setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 8. This Court vide order dated 12.3.2009, admitted the instant Regular Second Appeal, on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether both the Courts below have acted in erroneous and perverse manner is not recording separate findings as to which of the properties which was subject matter of the gift were non ancestral, especially when it was sufficiently established that the properties of Shri Nanak Chand were Joint Hindu Family, Coparcenary and ancestral property? 2. Whether both the Courts below have misread the oral and documentary evidence and misapplied the ratio of the judgments of Apex Court to non suit the plaintiff on the ground that the suit properties during settlement operation have been mixed up and thereby in an erroneous and perverse manner upheld the validity of the gift which was otherwise illegal, null and void? 9. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellants/plaintiff, vehemently argued that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary, against the facts and law as such deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. 9. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellants/plaintiff, vehemently argued that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary, against the facts and law as such deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Gupta, further contended that both the Courts below have committed grave error in not framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties because no specific issue regarding ancestral nature of the property was framed, as a result of which, appellants/plaintiff was unable to lead specific evidence to prove on record the nature of the property in dispute, as a result of which, grave prejudice has been caused to the appellants/plaintiff. While inviting the attention of this Court to the findings returned by the Courts below, Mr. Gupta, contended that both the Courts below have fallen in grave error while holding that the ancestral and nonancestral portion of the property have been mixed up and as such, it is difficult to identify the ancestral and nonancestral portion of the suit land. 10. Mr. Gupta, further contended that impugned judgments passed by both the Courts are result of sheer misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record to the detriment of the plaintiff, who successfully proved on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that such property is/was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property and could not be gifted by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1. While specifically inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, Mr. Gupta, contended that it has committed grave procedural error in not properly formulating the point for the disposal of the appeal. He further contended that being last fact finding Court, learned First Appellate Court ought to have addressed itself to all the issues and decide the same by arriving specific reasons in support of such findings, but careful perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court clearly suggests that it has failed to take note of the evidence led on record by the defendants in the shape of Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-20 and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Gupta, further contended that both the Courts below travelled beyond the scope of the pleadings while arriving at a conclusion that no relief can be granted to the appellants/plaintiff on account of mixing up of ancestral and non-ancestral property, especially when the nature of the property was duly established to be Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property. In the aforesaid background, appellants/plaintiff prayed that his suit may be decreed after setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below. 12. Ms. Shilpa Sood, learned counsel representing the respondents/defendants, supported the impugned judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below. While inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below, Ms. Sood, strenuously argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below and as such, same deserves to be upheld. While refuting the aforesaid contentions having been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, Ms. Sood, invited the attention of this Court to the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below to demonstrate that plaintiff was not able to prove on record that suit property was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property and as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. Ms. Sood, further contended that since suit for declaration and joint possession as consequential relief was filed by the plaintiff, onus was heavily upon him to prove on record that no gift deed could be executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 of the land, which was alleged to be Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property. While referring to the evidence led on record by the plaintiff, Ms. Sood, contended that bare perusal of the same nowhere suggest that suit land is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property and as such, Courts below have rightly concluded that it is difficult to identify the ancestral and non-ancestral portion of the suit land. Ms. Sood, while praying for dismissal of the appeal, contended that there is no scope of interference of this Court, especially in view of the concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the courts below. Ms. Sood, while praying for dismissal of the appeal, contended that there is no scope of interference of this Court, especially in view of the concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the courts below. In this regard, to substantiate her aforesaid plea, she placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 . 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Substantial questions of law No.1 and 2. 14. This Court, solely with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below as well as submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, carefully perused the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof, definitely not suggest that courts below while rejecting the claim of the plaintiff misread the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, rather this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. 15. Undisputedly, first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and parties are required to be heard by learned first appellate Court both on questions of law as also on facts. Similarly, while examining the correctness of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, learned first appellate Court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the same by giving reasons in support of such findings. In the instant case, perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court suggests that it has taken into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence led on record by the respective parties while affirming the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellants/plaintiff argued that the documents having been relied upon by the respondents/ defendants were not taken into consideration by the learned First Appellate Court while deciding the appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellants/plaintiff argued that the documents having been relied upon by the respondents/ defendants were not taken into consideration by the learned First Appellate Court while deciding the appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff. But, perusal of para-13 of the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court clearly suggest that learned First Appellate Court while arriving at the conclusion that the suit land is not in the hands of the plaintiff, his father (defendant No.3) and defendant No.1 as a Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property, specifically took into consideration Ex.D- 6, Ex.D-10, Ex.D-11, Ex.D-18 and Ex.D-19 i.e. documents relied upon by the defendants. 16. After carefully perusing the aforesaid documents relied upon by the defendants, learned first appellate Court came to the conclusion that out of total suit land i.e. 27.10.03 bighas, about 19 ½ bighas is mixture of ancestral and non-ancestral land of Nanak Chand and plaintiff has failed to prove on record that remaining land of 8 or 8 ½ bighas in the suit land is /was ancestral. 17. Otherwise also, suit for declaration and joint possession as consequential relief was filed by the plaintiff and as such, initial burden to prove that the suit property is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property is/ was on the plaintiff. But in the instant case, perusal of the evidence led on record by the plaintiff, nowhere proves on record that the suit land is/was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property. 18. PW-1, Sh. Hirda Ram stated that the suit land is ancestral and has not been partitioned. He further stated that the gift deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is wrong and defendant No.3 has no right to gift the suit land. 19. PW-2, Sh. Hem Singh also corroborated the version put forth by PW-1 that the suit land is ancestral and is not self acquired property of the defendants. He also stated that the suit land is yet to be partitioned. However, in cross-examination, he denied that the suit land has been partitioned and plaintiff has left his share. 20. PW-3, Sh. Dhani Ram also stated that the suit land is ancestral and has not been partitioned. 21. DW-1, Sh. Pal Singh deposed before the Court that his father late Sh. Nanak Chand had expired on 10.12.1997. However, in cross-examination, he denied that the suit land has been partitioned and plaintiff has left his share. 20. PW-3, Sh. Dhani Ram also stated that the suit land is ancestral and has not been partitioned. 21. DW-1, Sh. Pal Singh deposed before the Court that his father late Sh. Nanak Chand had expired on 10.12.1997. It has also come in his evidence that the plaintiff is his brother and he has not visited the house for the last 35-40 years and since then he is living separately. It has also come in his statement that he is coming in possession of the suit land from the time of his father and a will has also been executed in his favour. DW-1 further stated that he was also present on 21.12.1992 at the time of the execution of the gift deed , which was accepted by him and report was also made in the Rapat Rojnamcha dated 12.12.1991 Ex.D-1. In the cross-examination, he specifically denied the question put to him that his father had partitioned the land during his life time and possession was given to him by the Patwari and Kanungo on the spot. 22. DW-2, Sh. Lekh Ram and DW-3, Sh. Hem Singh, also supported the version put forth by DW-1 that Sh. Nanak Chand had executed gift deed Ex.PB in favour of the defendant. Aforesaid witnesses also stated that the plaintiff had been residing in the house of his in laws and he never cultivated the suit land 23. If, oral evidence led on record by the plaintiff, as discussed above, is carefully examined, it can be safely inferred that the plaintiff was not able to prove on record that the suit land is/was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property. Similarly, perusal of documentary evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff nowhere proves that the suit land was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property. 24. Perusal of copy of Missal Haquiat Ex.PA, copy of mutation Ex.PC, copy of pedigree table Ex.PD, copy of jamabandi for the year, 1945-46 Ex.PE, copy of jamabandi for the year, 1954-55 Ex.PF and copy of jamabandi for the year, 1954-55 Ex.PG shows that Sh. Nanak Chand and his father Bhund were recorded in the ownership and possession of the suit property. Nanak Chand and his father Bhund were recorded in the ownership and possession of the suit property. Though, perusal of copy of mutation for the year, 1945-46(Ex.P1/A) suggests that the suit land had been shown in the ownership and possession of Saju son of Sh. Manohar and mutation was sanctioned in favour of Bhund, the father of the present plaintiff, but perusal of copy of mutation Ex.P2/A also proves ownership of Bhund, on the basis of which, mutation was sanctioned in favour of Sh. Nanak Chand i.e. father of the plaintiff. Whereas, perusal jamabandi for the year, 1973-74 Ex.P3/A suggests that Manohar was shown to be owner in possession of the suit land. 25. After having carefully examined the evidence led on record by the plaintiff, which has been discussed hereinabove, this Court sees no reasons to differ with the findings returned by the courts below that plaintiff was not able to prove on record that the suit property is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property. Since, plaintiff failed to prove on record that the suit land is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property, learned courts below rightly accepted the plea of the defendant that the whole of the suit property is not Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and ancestral property but some of the property is also self acquired property. 26. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated/ observed that onus, if any, was upon the plaintiff to prove his claim with regard to the nature of the property but since he failed to discharge that onus by leading cogent and convincing evidence on record, there was no occasion as such for the learned first appellate court to refer documents relied upon by the defendants in support of their claim, while deciding the appeal having been filed by the appellants/plaintiff. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law that court of appeal must cover all important questions involved in the case and it is expected to record in clear terms specifically stating reasons therein to differ with the findings returned by the learned trial Court. It is also well settled that Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and first appeal is a valuable right of the parties. 27. It is also well settled that Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and first appeal is a valuable right of the parties. 27. True, it is that the judgment of the appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and it must record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising alongwith the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for the decision of appellate court. Moreover, when first appellate court reverses findings of trial Court, it is expected to record findings in clear terms specifically stating therein, in what manner, reasoning of trial court is erroneous. But when appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by the trial Court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by the trial Court would ordinarily suffice. 28. In the instant case, learned first appellate court while agreeing with the findings returned by the learned trial Court has dealt with all the issues and as such there appears to be no force in the arguments having been advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that learned first appellate court has failed to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons in support of such findings. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh versus S.P. Srivastava reported in (2017) 2 SCC 415 , wherein, it has been held as under:- “13. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must therefore reflect court’s application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. The law relating to powers and duties of the first appellate court is well fortified by the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. Considering the nature and scope of duty of first appellate court, in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar (2015) 1 SCC 391 , it was held as under:- “12. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 188- 89, para 15) “15. … The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 188- 89, para 15) “15. … The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. … while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it.” The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 13. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court stated as under: (SCC p. 244, para 3) “3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 14. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 303, para 2) 15. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 303, para 2) 15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5) “3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 SCC p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.” 14. The points which arise for determination by a court of first appeal must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague. Even though the appellate court would be justified in taking a different view on question of fact that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by the trial judge in arriving at the finding in question. When appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by trial court would ordinarily suffice. However, when the first appellate court reverses the findings of the trial court, it must record the findings in clear terms explaining how the reasoning of the trial court is erroneous.” (Emphasized supplied) 29. Careful examination of the evidence, as discussed above, nowhere suggest that court below misread the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and arrived at wrong conclusion that the suit property is mixed up during settlement operation and as such it is difficult to identify the ancestral and non-ancestral portion of the suit land. This Court, after carefully examining the material available on record, is not persuaded to agree with the contention having been made by the learned counsel representing the plaintiff that the findings returned by the courts below are erroneous and perverse and same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. This Court, after carefully examining the material available on record, is not persuaded to agree with the contention having been made by the learned counsel representing the plaintiff that the findings returned by the courts below are erroneous and perverse and same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Rather, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the plaintiff failed to discharge onus, which was heavily upon him to prove the nature of the property, especially in view of the prayer having been made by him in the suit. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 30. This Court is fully satisfied that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and as such sees no perversity in the impugned judgments, accordingly, there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma’s case supra, wherein the Court has held as under: “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for reappreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (p.269) 31. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, present appeal fails and same is dismissed. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, present appeal fails and same is dismissed. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.