P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below are the appellants and the plaintiff is the respondent in the present second appeal. This appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned District judge, Chittoor in AS No. 12 of 1988 dated 29-7-1994. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as specified hereunder: The plaintiff, the respondent herein, had originally instituted the suit OS no. 261 of 1982 on the file of the District munsif Court, Palamaner for the relief of permanent injunction against the appellant- defendants on the ground mat the defendants had been interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site and that they had no right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property. Subsequent thereto, the plaint was got amended by adding the prayer for the relief of declaration of title also. It is pleaded in the plaint that the suit site, which is to the north of the hut in which the respondent plaintiff resides, had been purchased by the respondent plaintiff from one Sholingapuram venkatappa under a registered sale deed dated 15-2-1950 and since then the plaintiff had been residing in the hut to the south of the suit site as well as the suit vacant site wherein there is stone pillar and hayrick. At the time of purchase of the suite site, the house of the plaintiffs family was situated at the west of the hut, which hut is now in occupation of one Peddabba and to the north of suit site, the site was acquired by the first defendant who constructed a house and purchased its north and that the site on which the house of first defendant is constructed is distinctly separated from the suit site. The second and third defendants are the sons of the first defendant and all the appellant- defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the plaint schedule site. ( 3 ) THE third defendant filed a written statement and a memo of adoption was filed by the defendants 1 and 2. The second and third defendants are the sons of the first defendant and all the appellant- defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the plaint schedule site. ( 3 ) THE third defendant filed a written statement and a memo of adoption was filed by the defendants 1 and 2. It was pleaded in the written statement that the boundaries of the suit site are entirely different from that of the sale deed and hence neither the plaintiff nor her vendor had any title and further the house of the defendants is situated to the north and east and the space mentioned for usage of hayrick is in existence and the same is in possession of the defendants and it is their property and that bathroom of the plaintiff is about three feet on higher level to the vacant site and hence the defendants have no need to encroach on the suit site since the suit site belongs to them and it is the plaintiff and her people who are trying to encroach on the suit site and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) ON the strength of the pleadings the Trial Court had framed two issues initially namely: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? And (2) To what relief?subsequent to the amendment, an additional issue was framed as follows: whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? the Trial Court after recording the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and DWs. 1 to 3 and marking ex. A1 and Exs. Bl and B2, had decreed the suit as prayed for vide judgment and decree dated 1-12-1987. Aggrieved by the same the unsuccessful defendants had preferred appeal AS 12 of 1988 on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor. The appellate court also had dismissed the appeal with costs by judgment dated 29-7-1994 confirming the decree and judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred. ( 5 ) SMT. Bramaramba Devi, representing Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant- defendants had submitted that though the second appeal arises out of confirming judgment there are several illegalities. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred. ( 5 ) SMT. Bramaramba Devi, representing Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant- defendants had submitted that though the second appeal arises out of confirming judgment there are several illegalities. The learned Counsel initially pointed out that this is a peculiar case where an advocate- commissioner should have been appointed and though an application IA 328 of 1990 was filed for appointment of Commissioner, the appellate Court on erroneous grounds was not inclined to appoint an advocate commissioner for noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property and in view of Section 105 of the Civil Procedure code (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) since the same can be raised as a ground of appeal, it had been raised as a ground no. 7 in the present second appeal. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the appellate Court also had totally erred in not allowing the application IA No. 229 of 1990 filed by the appellants under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code in which a sketch was sought to be filed to explain the existing physical features. The learned counsel also had further taken me through oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and had contended that, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the respondent plaintiff had proved possession and hence the question of granting perpetual injunction in her favour does not arise. Further, the learned Counsel also pointed out to ground No. 10a and B of the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal and had submitted that these are the substantial questions-of-law involved in the second appeal. No doubt, several decisions also had been relied upon by the learned counsel to convince the Court that the appellate Court has power to appoint an advocate-Commissioner for noting down the physical features as the said application was disallowed on erroneous grounds. The learned Counsel also had made serious attempt making a request to this Court to appoint an advocate-Commissioner at this stage for the purpose of noting down the physical features inasmuch as the report of such Advocate-Commissioner will throw light on the existing physical features relating to the plaint schedule property. The learned Counsel also had made serious attempt making a request to this Court to appoint an advocate-Commissioner at this stage for the purpose of noting down the physical features inasmuch as the report of such Advocate-Commissioner will throw light on the existing physical features relating to the plaint schedule property. ( 6 ) PER contra Sri C. Pattabhi Rama rao, learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff had contended that the judgments of the Courts below are clear, categorical and convincing and concurrent findings had been recorded by both the courts and in such case, in the second appeal this Court should be very slow in disturbing such findings. The learned counsel also had made elaborate submissions about the scope and ambit of Section 100 of the Code and of the questions that can be styled as substantial questions of law. The learned Counsel no doubt was fair enough to say that in view of the recent trend of the decisions of the Apex Court, in certain circumstances, there may be reappreciation of evidence also in second appeal but this is not a case falling under any of such circumstances. It was also contended that the Counsel for the appellants was unable to point any illegality or irregularity in following the procedure or in appreciation of evidence or non-appreciation of admissible evidence or taking into consideration any inadmissible evidence or any other totally erroneous approach in the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence. The learned Counsel also had meticulously taken me through the findings recorded by both the Courts in general and the findings recorded by the appellate Court in particular at paras 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment. The learned counsel also had pointed out that reasons had been recorded why the appellate Court was not inclined to allow either the application IA 328 of 1990 or the application ia 229 of 1990 and hence though these aspects are raised by way of specific grounds by virtue of the same, the well considered judgments of both the Courts below need not be disturbed in the second appeal. ( 7 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. ( 7 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. ( 8 ) THOUGH the appellate Court had framed the point for consideration as to whether the grant of declaration and injunction in favour of the respondent plaintiff by the Trial Court is sustainable, the appellate Court had discussed in paras 8 to 28 in detail both oral and documentary evidence and had affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. A clear finding had been recorded at para 14 that there is no dispute regarding the title deeds Exs. A1 and B1 and in fact, it had recorded the findings relating to respective title deeds. It is no doubt true that when interlocutory orders are made, not every order need be questioned and definitely by virtue of sub-section 105 of the Code such interlocutory orders also can be questioned in the appeal by raising specific grounds. Sub-section (1) of section 105 of the Code says that save as otherwise expressly provided no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction but where a decree is appealed from any error, defect or irregularity in any order affecting the decision of the case may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. Hence to attract sub-section (1) of section 105 of the Code (1) there must be an error, defect or irregularity in any order. (2) such order should affect the decision of the case and (3) in such case it may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. The grounds set forth in the present appeal relating to dismissal of applications for appointment of commissioner and also for reception of additional evidence have been set forth, as grounds in the present second appeal but however in view of the convincing reasons recorded by the appellate Court it cannot be said that the ingredients of sub-section (1) are attracted in the present case. Section 107 of the Code dealing with the powers of appellate Court reads as hereunder:"107. Section 107 of the Code dealing with the powers of appellate Court reads as hereunder:"107. Powers of Appellate Court : (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed an Appellate Court shall have power (a) to determine a case finally (b) to remand a case (c) to frame issues and refer them for trial (d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. (2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (2) of section 107 of the Code specifies that the appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. In view of the language employed in sub-section (2) of Section 107 of the code there cannot be any doubt that the appellate Court also has power to appoint an advocate-Commissioner under Order 26 rule 9 of the Code. However, in view of the reasons recorded, the appellate Court is well justified in declining to appoint an advocate-Commissioner in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the application IA No. 229 of 1990 filed for reception of additional evidence is also for reception of rough sketch and another application IA 328 of 1990 was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The appellate Court had dismissed both the applications recording convincing reasons at para 13 of the judgment. Even otherwise though the appellate Court has power to appoint an advocate-Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 107 of the Code in view of the convincing reasons, which had been recorded by the appellate court in negativing the relief of appointment of Commissioner on the ground that it is a belated application, the said finding recorded by the appellate Court cannot be faulted in any way. As far as the reception of additional evidence is concerned, in the light of the existence of title deeds and the interpretation thereof in Exs. As far as the reception of additional evidence is concerned, in the light of the existence of title deeds and the interpretation thereof in Exs. A1 and B. 1 the rough sketch prepared by the appellants may not be of any consequence and the same may not throw much light to decide the respective rights of the parties and hence in view of the reasons recorded by the appellate Court, the dismissal of the said application also cannot be said to be unjustified". ( 9 ) THE respective pleadings of the parties in brief already had been discussed and they need not be repeated again. The suit is one for the reliefs of declaration of tjtle and for permanent injunction relating to the plaint schedule property basing on Ex. A1 sale deed. Findings relating to the measurements and description of the properties both in the respective title deeds exs. A1 and B1 and reasons had been recorded by the appellate Court in detail after assessing both oral and documentary evidence. Ex. Al is dated 15-2-1950 the registered sale deed executed by venkatappa in favour of the plaintiff. Ex. B1 is a registered sale deed dated 12-2-1959 executed by Kuppaiah and another in favour of Subbarayal Naidu and Ex. B2 is the certificate issued by the Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat in favour of the defendants. Apart from the documentary evidence, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is available on record. As against this on behalf of the defendants DWs 1 to 3 were examined. The oral evidence also had been appreciated in detail and the documentary evidence Exs. A1 and B1 and B2 had been discussed at length at paras 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment of the appellate Court. Further, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 had been elaborately discussed at paras 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment of the appellate court. Thus, the factual details had been considered threadbare and ultimately at para 24 clear findings had been recorded in "this regard. Not only, the Trial Court had appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent plaintiff, equally the appellate Court also had appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in detail produced by the appellant- defendants. Thus, the factual details had been considered threadbare and ultimately at para 24 clear findings had been recorded in "this regard. Not only, the Trial Court had appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent plaintiff, equally the appellate Court also had appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in detail produced by the appellant- defendants. Hence, though the point for consideration was formulated, as specified supra, the appellate Court had considered all the aspects while arriving at the conclusion that the findings of the Trial Court need not be disturbed. 1 had gone through the findings recorded by the appellate Court and I do not find any erroneous approach adopted by the appellate Court in appreciating . he> ral and documentary evidence. It is no doubt true that the appellate Court is the final Court relating to appreciation of factual aspects and hence the first appellate Court is always expected to deal with the aspects in detail and appreciate the whole evidence available on record while recording the findings and not to make any cryptic judgments while either confirming the judgment of the Trial Court or reversing the judgment of the Trial Court as the case may be. In the present case, I am well satisfied that the appellate Court had taken care to go through the whole evidence. It is no doubt true that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not so satisfactory. But, however, in view of the well-considered findings recorded by the appellate Court and especially in the light of the fact that all the aspects had been well considered and findings had been recorded, I am not inclined to disturb such findings, which had been recorded by the appellate Court on appreciation of both questions-of-fact and questions-of-law involved in the matter. ( 10 ) HENCE in view of the same, the second appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own costs.