JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant, who was plaintiff in the court below has preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2010 passed by learned District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 24 of 2009 whereby and whereunder learned court below allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2009 passed by learned Munsif, Gumla in Title suit no. 19 /86 without disturbing the compromise arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the suit property was recorded in the name of the common ancestor of the parties to the suit namely Most. Jumni, who is widow of Sheikh Rajab Ali. Most. Jumni was the exclusive owner in the possession over the suit property in her own right for more than twenty years and in case, if she has a defect in her title, it has been perfected by adverse possession. Most. Jumni has no son but only four daughters namely Bibi Akiman, Bibi Sogra, Bibi Masudan and Bibi Bholi and all of them were married. The father of the plaintiff- Sheikh Mansur is the son of Bibi Akiman, who is one of the daughters of Most. Jumni. Shahjadi Bibi, who is the daughter of Bibi Masudan and thus the grand-daughter of Most. Jumni, married the father of the plaintiff namely Sheikh Mansur. Both Shahajadi Bibi and Sheikh Mansur lived with Most. Jumni and they used to look after her. Out of love and affection, Most. Jumni made a gift of the suit property to Shahjadi Bibi and Shahjadi Bibi took possession of the suit land. Thereafter, Most. Jumni executed and got registered the deed of gift on 04.07.1955 in favour of Shahjadi Bibi, which was accepted by her and since the date of the gift, Shahjadi Bibi became the exclusive owner of the suit property and acquired all right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and her name was mutated in the office of Circle Officer, Gumla and her name was also mutated in the Register-II but as the land was Belagan, hence, there was no payment for rent. Plaintiff claims to be the only heir of Shahjadi Bibi and by way of inheritance, he became exclusive owner and acquired possession over the suit property after the death of his mother Shahjadi Bibi. The plaintiff also applied for mutation in the office of Circle Officer, Gumla and after due and proper enquiry, the suit land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants being the relatives of the plaintiff were inducted by the plaintiff as joint tenant @ Rs. 150/- per month over the suit property. As the defendants raised objection during mutation proceeding and denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit property and also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant since 1979, hence, the plaintiff filed the suit with prayer for declaration of title over the suit property mentioned in schedule A and B of the plaint and also for delivery for first possession by evicting the defendant from schedule B property and costs of the suit. 4. The case of the defendant nos. 1 and 3 is that the plaintiff is not the member of their family nor the defendant nos. 1 and 3 were ever tenant of the plaintiff. The further case of the defendants is that schedule A property of the plaint was purchased by Sheikh Rajab Ali from Panchkuri Kasai for consideration of Rs. 15/- on 06.08.1908 and another sale deed was executed by Sheikh Akhaz for consideration of Rs. 50/- on 29.01.1909. After purchasing the land with house Sk. Rajab Ali was living in the same house along with his family members and he died just before the revenue settlement operation living behind his wife Most. Jumni and four minor daughters, who were living in the care of their mother Most. Jumni and as after the death of Sheikh Rajab Ali, Most. Jumni looked after the family; hence, the suit land was recorded in the name of Most. Jumni.Since the parties to the suit are governed by Mohammaden Hanafi School of law, hence, after the death of Sheikh Rajab Ali, his widow Most. Jumni and four daughters jointly inherited the suit property. Defendant no. 1 is the son of Bibi Sogra, one of the daughters of Most. Jumni and defendant no. 3 is the son of Bibi Bholi, another daughter of Most. Jumni. It is further case of the defendant nos. Jumni and four daughters jointly inherited the suit property. Defendant no. 1 is the son of Bibi Sogra, one of the daughters of Most. Jumni and defendant no. 3 is the son of Bibi Bholi, another daughter of Most. Jumni. It is further case of the defendant nos. 1 and 3 that after marriage of their mothers, they used to live in the suit property with their respective husbands till their death and the defendants were born on the suit property. It is further case of defendant nos. 1 and 3 that they have spent more than Rupees two lakhs for remodeling and constructing pucca house over the suit land on which the plaintiff is also living. The defendants denied about the knowledge of the execution and registration of the gift deed by Most. Jumni in favour of Bibi Shahjadi. It is further case of the defendants that Most. Jumni is not competent to execute the gift deed with respect to the suit property, she being not the exclusive owner thereof, as the mother of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 were also the owners of the suit property and that the alleged gift deed has never been accepted by Bibi Shahjadi and the said gift deed was never acted upon. The defendant no. 2 however, admitted the averments made in the plaint and prayed that suit be decreed. 5. Learned trial court on the basis of the rival pleadings altogether framed nine issues, out of which, issue no. (viii) reads as under, is the main issue:- “(viii) Whether Most. Jumni alone was competent to execute the Deed of gift in favour of the mother of the plaintiff and whether the Deed of Gift has ever acted upon?” 6. Learned trial court basing upon the evidence in the record arrived at a finding that Most. Jumni being the exclusive owner of the suit property is competent to execute a gift deed in respect of suit property and Exhibit 4, which is the registered gift deed, is a legal and valid document, which has been acted upon and binding upon the defendants of the suit. 7. Jumni being the exclusive owner of the suit property is competent to execute a gift deed in respect of suit property and Exhibit 4, which is the registered gift deed, is a legal and valid document, which has been acted upon and binding upon the defendants of the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, Gumla and same was numbered as Title Appeal No. 24 of 2009 which was ultimately heard and decided by learned District Judge, Gumla by the impugned judgment and decree and learned District Judge, Gumla considering the fact that an entry in record of right cannot create a title and in view of the undisputed relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants, settled the following points for determination in the appeal :- (a) Whether Mst. Jumni had right, title and interest in suit property and whether she was also competent to execute the Deed of gift Ext- 4 in favour of plaintiff / mother? (b) Whether the Gift Deed was accepted or acted upon and does Mst. Sahjadi get right, title, and interest on the strength of that Gift Deed. The learned District Judge by observing that it is undisputed fact that the parties are governed by Hanafi School of Muslim law, held that the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the suit property and considering the evidence in the record, came to a conclusion that evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that the gift was accepted by Bibi Shahjadi or that the gift deed was acted upon and dismissed the suit. 8. Mr. Rohit Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned lower appellate court erred in holding that Most. Jumni has no right, title, interest over the suit property; as such she is incompetent to transfer the same and misconstrued the personnel law governing inheritance. It is also submitted that the learned court below could not appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and erroneously came to the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. It is further submitted that the learned first appellate court erred in ignoring the fact that the entry in the record of right for a long period of time has conferred a title upon Most. Jumni. 9. It is further submitted that the learned first appellate court erred in ignoring the fact that the entry in the record of right for a long period of time has conferred a title upon Most. Jumni. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record, I find that the learned lower appellate court has made a threadbare discussions of the oral evidence in the record and has come to a finding that the defendants and prior to them, their mothers were all along been in possession of the suit property and also considering that in this case neither the gift was accepted by the donee nor the same was accepted on behalf of the donee nor there was delivery of possession and thus came to the conclusion that the name of Shahjadi Bibi @ Rajo was never entered in the record of right and even after the alleged gift, Most. Jumni continued to pay land revenue in respect of the suit property and allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, as already indicated above. 10. It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme of India, in paragraph -10 of the case of Gurvachan Kaur and Others vs. Salikram (dead) through LRS., reported in (2010) 15 SCC 530 as under:- "10. It is settled law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse. This being the position, it must be held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court on the issues of existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and default committed by the latter in payment of rent." (Emphasis Supplied). 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered. The learned Counsel for the appellant also could not point out any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. 12. Thus there being no merit, this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs.