1. The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants- original plaintiffs to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amreli dated 28/06/1982 in Regular Civil Suit No. 2/1980 by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit preferred by the appellants-original plaintiffs. The appellants- original plaintiffs have also prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court-learned District Judge, Amreli dated 21/01/1986 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 87/1982 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants-original plaintiffs and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.
2. The appellants-original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 2/1980 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amreli against the respondents-original defendants for declaration that respondent no. 1-original defendant no. 1 has no right, title or interest in the suit property and respondent no. 2-original defendant no. 2 is not entitled to recover her maintenance dues from the said property and for permanent injunction restraining respondent no. 2 from recovering her dues from the suit property etc. The learned trial Court by impugned judgment and decree dated 28/06/1982 has dismissed the suit by holding that the appellants-original plaintiffs have failed to prove that respondent no. 1-original defendant no. 1 has no right in the property as alleged and the appellants-original plaintiffs have failed to prove that ancestral property was partitioned between the appellants-original plaintiffs and respondent no. 1-original defendant no. 1 by taking away his right by accepting Rs. 3500/- on 21/08/1974 and respondent no. 1- original defendant no. 1 waived his right from the suit property. The learned trial Court also held that the appellants-original plaintiffs have failed to prove that respondent no. 2-original defendant no. 2 has no right to recover the amount of maintenance from the suit property and consequently the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amreli dated 28/07/1982 in Regular Civil Suit No. 2/1980 the appellants-original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 87/1982 before the learned District Court, Amreli and the learned District Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 21/01/1986 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below the appellants-original plaintiffs have preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Considering the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below, it appears that there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below holding that the appellants-original plaintiffs have failed to prove that respondent no. 1-original defendant no. 1 has no right in the property as alleged and have also failed to prove that respondent no. 2-original defendant no. 2 has no right to recover the amount of maintenance from the suit property. The aforesaid finding of fact given by both the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence, which are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Considering the judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below, it appears that the finding given by both the Courts below and consequently decreeing the suit cannot be said to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.
4. Under the circumstances and in view of the above, the present Second Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji