(1.) THE legal heirs of original plaintiff are before this Court questioning the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge dismissing the suit, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court.
(2.) THE ease of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property with a vacant space belongs to the plaintiff. She inherited the same from her parents. The defendants axe the daughters. The defendant No. 1 without any right has been interfering with the plaintiffs' possession on the basis of a alleged gift deed dated 21.4.2005. According to the plaintiffs the said deed is unlawful. The plaintiff at the time of the execution of the gift deed was 35 years old and was unable to fathom as to what was happening around her. It is also their contention that pursuant to the gift deed possession is not delivered. Hence, the suit for cancellation of the gift deed. All the defendants remained exparte except defendant No. 1 who is the beneficiary of the gift deed. It is contended that pursuant to the gift deed the possession has already been delivered and she is in possession. She would contend that indeed, the gift deed has been executed by the mother.
(3.) THE Will set up by one of the plaintiffs is also negated on the ground that it is not proved. Having said so, I am of the view that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below is based on appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Appeal stands dismissed.