As per case facts, the plaintiff sought declaration of title, possession, nullification of documents, and injunctions over property purchased in 1996. Her vendor had purchased it in 1981 from a ... GPA holder. Defendants claimed title based on a 2018 sale from defendant No.3, who allegedly received it via a Will. Both lower courts ruled for the plaintiff. The question arose whether the plaintiff established her title and if defendant No.3 had the legal right to transfer, and if the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted intervention in a second appeal. Finally, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the lower courts' judgments. It was held that the plaintiff possessed valid title, and defendant No.3 had no title to convey, in line with the principle 'Nemo dat quod non habet.' The court found the findings to be based on proper evidence and lacking substantial questions of law for interference.