JUDGMENT : K.S. MUDAGAL, J. 1. This second appeal of the plaintiffs arises out of the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2008 passed by the Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi, in R.A. No. 162/2006. By the said judgment and decree, the first Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2006 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Jamakhandi, in O.S. No. 105/2002 dismissing the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction. 2. Appellants were the plaintiffs and respondents were the defendants before the Trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, they will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. The subject matter of the suit are lands bearing R.S. No. 63 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas and R.S. No. 63/A measuring 2 acres 17 guntas situated within the limits of Alabal Village, Jamkhandi Taluk, Bagalkot District. 4. The suit properties belonged to one Siddappa. Siddappa had three sons by name Mallappa, Avadut and Butali. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are the sons of Mallappa. Defendant No. 5 is the daughter-in-law of Mallappa. Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 are the children of defendant No. 5. The plaintiffs are the great grandchildren of Avadut. Butali was survived by his wife Padmawwa. 5. Plaintiffs filed the suit claiming that Butali had the right of performing pooja in Amogsidda temple and the right of suit lands were attached to the office of that priest. They further contended that Butali's share in the right of performing pooja and the two annas share in the land attached to that office of priest, on his death devolved on his widow Padmawwa. They further contended that Padmawwa transferred her right of performing pooja and interest in the property under Ex. P.2 the gift deed dated 08.04.1972 and thus they sought declaration that they are entitled to two annas share of the deceased Padmawwa in the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction. 6. The defendants contested the suit denying the relationship of the plaintiffs, right of Padmawwa, the gift deed and maintainability of the suit in the form it was framed. 7. Plaintiffs adduced evidence. The 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1. They got examined P.W. 5 as attestor to the gift deed. Further, they examined P.Ws. 2 to 4 to substantiate their claim and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.5. 7. Plaintiffs adduced evidence. The 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1. They got examined P.W. 5 as attestor to the gift deed. Further, they examined P.Ws. 2 to 4 to substantiate their claim and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.5. Defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The Trial Court on hearing the parties dismissed the suit on the following grounds: (i) The alleged transaction of gift is not proved by adducing primary evidence. Ex. P.2 is only a certified copy of the gift deed and no foundation is laid to accept the said document invoking Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. (ii) The oral evidence adduced regarding the gift is not cogent and consistent. The evidence of P.W. 5, the alleged attestor, is unacceptable. 8. The first Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree concurred with the findings of the Trial Court accepting the said reasons. 9. Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the courts below were not justified in rejecting the claim of the gift when the defendants did not enter the witness box to deny the said claim. 10. Per contra, Sri. M.G. Naganuri, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 13 seeks to support the judgment and decree of the Courts below on the following grounds: (i) The whole case of the plaintiffs is based on the gift deed allegedly executed by Padmawwa. The original gift deed was not produced. The plaintiffs did not lay any foundation to admit Ex. P.2 in the evidence, though Ex. P.2 was marked subject to the objections on its admissibility. (ii) The admissions of P.W. 1 show that Butali had no right of performing pooja and therefore, Padmawwa could not have transferred the alleged right. P.W. 1 admitted that he was not in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is not maintainable. (iii) As per the evidence of P.W. 1 himself, Padmawwa had undivided interest in the suit properties along with her brothers-in-law and a gift of an undivided interest is void. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments: (1) H. Siddiqui (Dead) By LRs. Vs. A. Ramalingam (2011) 4 SCC 240 . (2) Babu Mother Savavva Navalgund & others vs. Gopinath ILR 1999 KAR 3129. (3) Thamma Venkata Subbamma Vs. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments: (1) H. Siddiqui (Dead) By LRs. Vs. A. Ramalingam (2011) 4 SCC 240 . (2) Babu Mother Savavva Navalgund & others vs. Gopinath ILR 1999 KAR 3129. (3) Thamma Venkata Subbamma Vs. Thamma Rattamma and Others (1987) 3 SCC 294 . 11. Having regard to the rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the case involves any substantial question of law to admit the appeal. 12. The whole claim of the plaintiffs is based on the alleged gift deed dated 08.04.1972 executed by Padmawwa. Admittedly, the plaintiffs did not produce the original gift deed. Ex. P.2, certified copy of the gift deed, was marked subject to the objections on its admissibility. Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act states that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. 13. When the secondary evidence can be adduced is prescribed in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgments of the Courts below show that at the time of arguing the matter, it was contended that the original gift deed was lost. The Trial Court states that P.W. 1, the profounder of the gift deed, does not whisper anything about the loss or destruction of the document. 14. Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act permits admitting the secondary evidence only when the original has been destroyed or lost or if, for any other reason beyond the control, the party relying on the same could not produce that. As rightly contended by the Courts below, P.W. 1 did not whisper anything about the loss or destruction of the original gift deed. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Siddiqui's case referred to supra, in para 12, in this regard has held as follows: "12. The provisions of Section 65 of the Act 1872 provide for permitting the parties to adduce secondary evidence. However, such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where original documents are not produced at any time, nor has any factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. However, such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where original documents are not produced at any time, nor has any factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, the documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance with law. The court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon. (Vide: The Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of Madras, State of Rajasthan V. Khemraj, LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen and M. Chandra v. M. Tangamuthu" (Emphasis Supplied) 16. Having regard to the aforesaid judgment and the evidence, Ex. P.2 was not admissible in evidence. If Ex. P.2 fails, then the whole case of the plaintiffs has to fail. In the circumstances, it is not even necessary to discuss other contentions raised by the parties. Moreover, all other contentions are not the questions of law they are only questions of fact. As held by the Supreme Court in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs reported in 2001(3) SCC 179 , on the question of fact, the first Appellate Court is the last Court unless it is shown that there is any perversity committed by the Courts below. Since Ex. P.2-gift deed itself is not proved, it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any perversity. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.