P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Smt. C Vani reddy, Counsel for the appellant and Sri D. Sethurami Reddy, Counsel for the 1st respondent. ( 2 ) ON 4-8-1997 this Court made the following order:"admitted on the question whether the finding that the defendant was not in possession is contrary to the admission in the document filed by the defendant, namely, adangal resgister. Status quo as on today shall be maintained. " ( 3 ) THE unsuccessful Defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in A. S. No. 22/93 on the file of principal Subordinate Judge, Gudur, reversing the judgment in O. S. No. 329/84 on the file of District Munsif, Gudur had preferred the present second appeal. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The 2nd respondent/2nd defendant is shown as not a necessary party. The main contention which had been advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that despite the fact that Ex. B-5 clearly shows the factum of possession, not placing reliance on Ex. B-1 and the clear evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 on the aspect that the total consideration had not been paid and possession also had been taken, reversing the well considered judgment of the Court of first instance, cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded in o. S. No. 329/85 and also by the Appellate court in A. S. No. 22/93 aforesaid. ( 4 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent had pointed out to the portions of the findings recorded by the Appellate Court in this regard and would contend that the appeal was allowed granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit land till the 1st defendant took steps to enforce the agreement of sale and recover possession of the suit property through due process of law. Hence, the Counsel would contend that when the ownership is not in dispute and when the very agreement of sale relied upon does not show the delivery of possession in the light of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 there is no question of considering the oral evidence relating to the said aspect. Hence, the Counsel would contend that when the ownership is not in dispute and when the very agreement of sale relied upon does not show the delivery of possession in the light of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 there is no question of considering the oral evidence relating to the said aspect. The learned counsel also pointed out to the findings recorded relating to the other documentary evidence and also the oral evidence available on record. ( 5 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 6 ) THE 1st defendant in the suit is the appellant and as aforesaid, aggrieved by the reversing judgment the present second appeal is preferred. ( 7 ) IT was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property having got in the family partition effected between his father and the brothers. He paid gist to the suit property. He also took loan from Syndicate Bank mortgaging the suit property. The 1st defendant agreed to purchase the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 14-11-1983 for consideration of rs. 23,330/- at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per acre. It was further pleaded that the 1st defendant paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as advance and he agreed to discharge rs. 5,000/- due to the Syndicate Bank and also further agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 1 1,800/- to the plaintiff on or before 14-12-1983, in default to pay the amount with interest @ 18% per annum. The 1st defendant also further agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 5,000/- within three months and in default to pay interest at 18% per annum. The property was agreed to be delivered to the 1st defendant after payment of entire sale consideration. The registered sale deed was to be executed at the cost of the 1st defendant. It was further pleaded that the 1st defendant had not paid any amount except the advance of Rs. 1,500/- till date in spite of reminders by the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the 1st defendant on 4-11-1985. On 20-11-1985 he got issued another notice intimating him that the advance is forfeited and the agreement is cancelled. ( 8 ) THE appellant herein/1st defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant. It was pleaded that the extent of property is only acs. On 20-11-1985 he got issued another notice intimating him that the advance is forfeited and the agreement is cancelled. ( 8 ) THE appellant herein/1st defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant. It was pleaded that the extent of property is only acs. 2. 75 and not Acs. 3-44 cents as alleged by the plaintiff. The boundaries of the suit property are as mentioned in the written statement and not as stated in the plaint schedule. The contract of sale is admitted. The 1st defendant executed a counterpart of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The sale consideration was only Rs. 19,250/- and not Rs. 22,380/- as stated in the plaint. It was further pleaded that the 1st defendant paid Rs. 1,500/- as advance under the contract of sale and took possession of the schedule property and further agreed to discharge the loan due to the Syndicate Bank, Podalakur. He made a payment of Rs. 10,500/- on 1-1-1984 to the father-in-law of the plaintiff as he was absent. The 1st defendant also handed over the agreement of sale to the father-in-law of the plaintiff for making the endorsement of payment of Rs. 10,500/- and due to mutual confidence he did not think of collecting it. Subsequently when the 1st defendant asked for its return the plaintiff replied that it was not traced. It was also further pleaded that on 30-4-1984 he paid an amount of Rs. 2,385/- towards the balance of sale consideration. The plaintiff gave a letter in his own handwriting noting the extent of the land and the rate per acre and the payments made by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also made a payment of Rs. 1,500/- to the plaintiff on 25-7-1984 towards the loan amount due to the Syndicate Bank. The plaintiff noted this payment also on the aforesaid letter signed by him. Thus, the first defendant paid the entire sale consideration for the suit land to the plaintiff except the remaining instalments due to the Syndicate Bank. The contention of the plaintiff that he did not make any payment except the advance of Rs. 1,500/- is preposterous. The 1st defendant received the registered notice dated 4-11-1985 on 16-11-1985 and as he was going on his duty as bus driver he could not send a reply. The contention of the plaintiff that he did not make any payment except the advance of Rs. 1,500/- is preposterous. The 1st defendant received the registered notice dated 4-11-1985 on 16-11-1985 and as he was going on his duty as bus driver he could not send a reply. Meanwhile he received another registered notice and questioned the plaintiff as to why he sent those notices. The plaintiff replied that it was got issued due to disputes with his brother. The 1st defendant did not receive the third notice before the suit was filed. The suit was immediately filed on 3-12-1985 and therefore he could not issue any reply. The entire sale consideration except the instalments due to the Syndicate Bank was paid by him. The plaintiff was not in possession of the schedule property on the date of the suit and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) ON the strength of these pleadings, the following Issues were settled by the court of first instance:1. Whether the first defendant was put in possession of schedule property on 14-11-1983? 2. Whether the Defendant No. 1 paid the amounts alleged in the written statement ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for ? 4. To what relief? ( 10 ) ON behalf of the 1st respondent/ plaintiff, PW-1 was examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, DW-1 and DW-2, Defendants 1 and 2, were examined and Exs. B-1 to b-5 were marked. Thus, except the evidence of the parties, there is no other oral evidence available on record. Ex. A-1 is the agreement of sale executed by lakshmaiah in favour of PW-1 dated 14-11-1983. Ex. A-2 is the office copy of the registered notice. Ex. A-3 is the postal acknowledgement and Ex. A-4 is the office copy of the registered notice. Likewise, ex. A-5 office copy of the registered notice and Ex. A-6 is the cist receipts. Ex. B-1 is a slip said to be containing some account. Ex. B-2 is the affidavit of the G. Malakondalakshmaiah. Ex. B-3 is the affidavit of K. Padmavathi. Ex. B-4 is the affidavit of T. Sarojini. Ex. B-5 is a certified copy of the No. 2. Adangal for fasli 1394. A-6 is the cist receipts. Ex. B-1 is a slip said to be containing some account. Ex. B-2 is the affidavit of the G. Malakondalakshmaiah. Ex. B-3 is the affidavit of K. Padmavathi. Ex. B-4 is the affidavit of T. Sarojini. Ex. B-5 is a certified copy of the No. 2. Adangal for fasli 1394. After recording findings, the Court of first instance held that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. ( 11 ) THE Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:1. Whether the first defendant was delivered possession of the suit land on 14-11-1983 on the date of Ex. A-1 agreement of sale? 2. Whether the first defendant was delivered possession of the suit land by the plaintiff subsequent to the execution of Ex. A-1 agreement of sale dated 14-11-1983? 3. Whether the appellant/legal representatives of the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed for ? 4. To what relief the appellant/lr of plaintiff is entitled to ?it may be appropriate to have a look at the relevant findings recorded by the appellate Court at Paras 15, 16 and 26 which read as hereunder: "in Ex. A-1 it is categorically stated that possession of the suit land is to be delivered to the first defendant only after payment of the entire balance of sale consideration. The first defendant has not denied the contents of Ex. A-1. The case of the plaintiff is that possession of the suit land was not delivered to die first defendant on 14-11-1983. Ex. A-1 was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. This document Ex. A-1 was scribed by g. Mallikarjunaiah. It is not attested by the person. In Ex. A-1 it is categorically stated as follows: A reading of the above contents clearly go to show that the suit property was not delivered to the first defendant on die date of Ex. A-1. Moreover, it is categorically stated that possession of the suit land is to be delivered to the first defendant only after payment of die entire balance of sale consideration. It is also stated in Ex. A-1 that the suit property was not measured and that payment will be made for the land purchased according to the measurements at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per acre. The plaintiff relies on Ex. A-1 to prove his contention. The contents of Ex. It is also stated in Ex. A-1 that the suit property was not measured and that payment will be made for the land purchased according to the measurements at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per acre. The plaintiff relies on Ex. A-1 to prove his contention. The contents of Ex. A-1 are not disputed by die first defendant The contents in Ex. A-1 have to be accepted rather than the parole evidence of the first defendant which is not supported by any other evidence with regard to the delivery of possession of the suit land. The first defendant has not examined any other witness to support his contention that the suit land was delivered to him on 14-11-1983. The first defendant also has not examined the scribe of Ex. A-1 document. There is only the oral evidence of the second defendant. The second defendant is not an attestor to Ex. A-1. According to the plaintiff, there are ill-feelings between him and the second defendant though they are brothers. The second defendant instead of sailing with his brother that is the plaintiff, is sailing with the first defendant and from this it can be inferred that there may be certain disputes between the plaintiff and the second defendant and when such is the case it is not proper on the part of the Court to rely on the evidence of the second defendant who is examined as dw-2 in this suit. Except the evidence of the first defendant, there is no other evidence to prove that possession of the suit land was delivered to him on 14-11-1983 i. e. , on the date of agreement of sale ex. A-1. To prove that the land was delivered to him on 14-11-1983, the first defendant has not produced any documents. He only produced Ex. B-5 which is the certified copy of No. 2 Adangal of 1394 fasli i. e. , of the year 1984. In Ex. B-5 the names of G. Venkatarami Reddy and Ch. Lakshmaiah are found. It is not stated in ex. B-5 that with regard to the nature of the possession of the land held by the first defendant. It is not stated therein whether the first defendant is agreement holder or lease holder etc. It is not the case of the first defendant that after purchase of the land under Ex. Lakshmaiah are found. It is not stated in ex. B-5 that with regard to the nature of the possession of the land held by the first defendant. It is not stated therein whether the first defendant is agreement holder or lease holder etc. It is not the case of the first defendant that after purchase of the land under Ex. A-1 he approached the revenue officials for incorporating his name as owner of the suit land in the revenue records. It is for the first defendant to state as to in what capacity, possession of the land was delivered to him and as to how his name could find place in the revenue records. Relying on Ex. A-1 agreement of sale executed by the first defendant, I hold that the possession of the suit land was not delivered to the first defendant on 14. 11. 1983. The first defendant in order to prove his possession filed Ex. B-5 certified copy of no. 2 Adangal for Fasli 1394. According to the defendant, he is delivered possession of the property on 14-11-1983 after payment of the entire sale consideration. According to him, he has become owner of the property though registered sale deed is not executed in his favour by the plaintiff. In such a case, the first defendant ought to have approached the revenue authorities for mutating his name in the revenue records but he has not approached the revenue officials for mutating his name in the revenue records. In Ex. B-5 the name of the first defendant is mentioned in Column 6 but it is not stated as to under which capacity, the first defendant is in possession of the property. The mere entry in the revenue records without any application being filed for entering the name of the first defendant cannot be treated as a valid entry. Hence there is no need to consider Ex. B-5. ( 12 ) THE twin contentions which had been advanced in elaboration by the Counsel for the appellant in relation to Ex. B-1 and ex. B-5 in fact had been dealt with by the Appellate Court and clear findings had been recorded. It is needless to say that the Appellate Court is the final Court of fact and these are all factual findings. B-1 and ex. B-5 in fact had been dealt with by the Appellate Court and clear findings had been recorded. It is needless to say that the Appellate Court is the final Court of fact and these are all factual findings. It is pertinent to note that ownership is not in controversy and when a finding had been recorded that in the agreement of sale there is no recital relating to delivery of possession, it is needless to say that the burden is on the party asserting the same that the total consideration had been paid and possession had been delivered. Except the interested evidence of the parties, dw-1 and DW-2, there is no other evidence available on record and hence the appellate Court is well justified in recording a finding depending upon the recitals of the documents that the stand taken by the appellant that possession had been delivered cannot be believed. Further, clear findings had been recorded relating to Ex. B-5 also. In the light of the said findings this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree of the appellate Court are liable to be confirmed especially in the light of the limited relief which had been granted by the Appellate court which had been already referred to supra. After thoroughly examining all the factual aspects, the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance had been reversed. Even otherwise, the question of aw referred to supra, definitely cannot be a substantial question of law so as to attract section 100 CPC. Viewed from any angle, the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.