JUDGMENT : The plaintiff in O.S.No.123 of 1986 on the file of Munsif Magistrate, Mummidivaram, is the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 are D2, D3 in the suit. 2. The appellant is the sole plaintiff instituted the suit against respondents 1 and 2 and also against one Mr.P.Tata Rao @ Appalaswamy against whom suit abated before trial Court as per orders dated 16.12.1991. The plaint schedule described land is the house site measuring 0.04 cents bounded by East: House of Malladi Dhanaraju South: House of Palepu China Venkanna West: Vacant land North: Land of plaintiff The appellant filed suit for declaration of his right and title and also for possession of plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondents or their men from interfering in any way with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and for costs. It is averred in the plaint that plaint schedule property is the absolute property of the appellant having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 18.06.1963 and 09.03.1978. The appellant also said to be purchased another 0.02 cents of site apart from plaint schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 18.09.1967 from Patta Muthyalamma for Rs.100/- wherein he constructed a house and paying taxes and his possession in respect of the plaint schedule property is open, peaceful and uninterrupted which site he is using for drying fish, fishing nuts wherein respondents have no right, title or interest. It is alleged that respondents having sold all their properties bent upon to cause obstruction to him for enjoyment and possession of plaint schedule property, which is situated on the north of the house purchased by him from Patta Muthyalamma. It is alleged that respondents having sold all their properties bent upon to cause obstruction to him for enjoyment and possession of plaint schedule property, which is situated on the north of the house purchased by him from Patta Muthyalamma. He also stated that further north of the plaint schedule property, there is a property of Palepu Nagulu, S/o.Dhanaraju and the plaintiff wanted to construct a house in the vacant site, but respondents obstructed him and then he issued notice for which the respondents kept quiet and he filed suit for injunction in O.S.No.13 of 1983 on the file of Munsif Magistrate, Mummidivaram, which was dismissed and then he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, which was also dismissed on 24.03.1986 wherein it is held that nature of property being an open vacant site, which is not possible to decide the possession and appellate Court advised the appellant to file a suit for declaration of his title for protection of his possession. Then plaintiff filed suit against defendants seeking declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. He also stated that it is customary among the caste of ‘Agnikula Kshatriya’ to obtain sale deeds on white papers in the presence of caste elders, due to that, he also obtained agreement of sale, which is in fact a sale deed and from the date of purchase of the site, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of respondents. As respondents are said to be denied his title and possession, he came up with a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. 3. The contention of defendants in their written statement is that findings in O.S.No.13 of 1983 which confirmed in A.S.No.24 of 1984 operates as resjudicata, due to that appellant is estopped from claiming any relief over plaint schedule property and he is not entitled to seek declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. They also stated that they are in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and alleged registered sale deeds dated 18.06.1963 and 09.03.1978, which are not pertaining to plaint schedule property and appellant not purchased Ac.0.02 cents under an agreement of sale dated 18.09.1967 from Patta Muthyalamma and there is no house in Ac.0.02 cents, which is also not in the possession of the appellant. They further stated that even Patta Muthyalamma had no site at all wherein appellant not constructed any house and alleged customary right of obtaining sale deeds on white paper also denied. They further stated that plaint schedule is vague, not contained any survey number for the extent which cannot be identified. They pray to dismiss the suit. 4. The trial Court basing on the above pleadings, settled the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration of his right, title, interest and possession in the plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any relief over plaint schedule property in view of the binding in O.S.No.13 of 1983 which became final in A.S.No.24 of 1984? 4. Whether the suit is barred by resjudicata? 5. Whether the relief prayed for is valued properly and Court fee paid is correct? 6. To what relief? 5. The parties went to trial. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 Malladi Nallayya and P.W.3 Sangani Narayana Murthy on his behalf while relying on Ex.A1 true extract of sale deed dated 18.07.1963, which is marked by consent on 17.02.1993, which is one day prior to advancing arguments in the suit. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.B1 and B2, which are certified copies of decree and judgment in O.S.No.13 of 1983, were marked. 6. On the material and evidence, the trial Court held that the appellant established his right, title and interest to the suit site against respondents and decreed the suit as prayed for. 7. Against the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, respondents herein presented A.S.No.26 of 1993 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, which was allowed and suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. 8. In these circumstances, the present second appeal is presented. 9. I have heard learned counsel Mr.S.Nagarjuna, representing learned counsel Mr.T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, for the appellant. There is no representation for the respondents. 10. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law raised at ground No.7 of grounds of appeal, which are: 1. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court? 2. Whether granting relief though prayed is correct or not? 11. There is no representation for the respondents. 10. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law raised at ground No.7 of grounds of appeal, which are: 1. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court? 2. Whether granting relief though prayed is correct or not? 11. Both Courts gave concurrent finding in respect of issue No.4 and held that suit is not barred by resjudicata on the ground that property shown in O.S.No.13 of 1983 and present suit schedule property are not one and the same. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the observation of appellate Court in A.S.No.24 of 1984, appellant filed suit for declaration though he previously filed suit for injunction simplicitor, due to that both Courts have rightly held that present suit filed by the appellant is not barred by resjudicata. He submits that dispute is only in respect of Ac.0.02 cents of land and appellate Court failed to consider the admissions made by D.W.1 in his cross-examination that they are not obstructing the possession of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property and erroneously dismissed the suit. He argued that there is no dispute about identity of the property, which is wrongly observed by learned appellate Court. He prays to allow the second appeal. 12. As per Section 100 CPC, this Court can interfere with the judgment of appellate Court, if it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law. A finding of fact recorded by appellate Court is binding on this Court unless there is any error of law in such finding. Even wrong finding of fact is not sufficient to constitute a question of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (dead) through LRs. Vs. Bisaram and others, in Civil Appeal No.6124 of 2011 judgment dated 17.02.2021 explained circumstances under which High Court determine issue of fact. 13. In the present case, basis for the claim of appellant/plaintiff as per averments in his plaint is that he purchased plaint schedule property under two registered sale deeds dated 18.06.1963 and 09.03.1978. Vs. Bisaram and others, in Civil Appeal No.6124 of 2011 judgment dated 17.02.2021 explained circumstances under which High Court determine issue of fact. 13. In the present case, basis for the claim of appellant/plaintiff as per averments in his plaint is that he purchased plaint schedule property under two registered sale deeds dated 18.06.1963 and 09.03.1978. As rightly pointed out by learned appellate Judge that appellant failed to produce those sale deeds before the trial Court and filed Ex.A1 true extract of sale deed dated 18.07.1963 one day before submitting arguments, which is not pertaining to the suit schedule property. Para - 15 of the appellate Court judgment reads as under: "15. However curiously enough, plaintiff filed a registration extract of sale deed dated 18.07.1963. It was marked by consent on 17.02.1993. This matter was heard by the trial Court on 18.02.1993. Thus, one day prior to advancing arguments, Ex.A1 was filed into Court and it was marked by consent. This document discloses the sale of Ac.0.02 cents of house site. Plaintiff himself admitted that he purchased Ac.0.02 cents house site besides the plaint schedule property by way of an agreement of sale dated 18.09.1967 from one Patta Mutyalamma. However, this document cannot be connected to the said house site purchased by him, from Patta Mutyalamma. Moreover the said Ac.0.02 cents of site is not the subject matter to this suit. Obtaining the sale deed dated 18.07.1963 does not find place in the plaint or in the evidence of P.W.1. However plaint discloses a reference to the registered sale deed dated 18.06.1963 whereas Ex.A1 is dated 18.07.1963. There is no explanation regarding commission of any error in mentioning the month of the registered sale deed in the plaint. Even if it is assumed that this document was mistakenly referred as a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1963 it is only for an extent of Ac.0.02 cents. This site is bounded on east by the site of Malladi Dhanaraju, on south of the house of Palepu Venkayya and on west by the site of Palepu China Sattiraju and on north the land of the plaintiff. Thus two of the boundaries i.e. East and north tally with the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1. The other two boundaries in the plaint schedule property do not tally. Thus two of the boundaries i.e. East and north tally with the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1. The other two boundaries in the plaint schedule property do not tally. However it is deposed by P.W.1 that one Palepu Nagoor has got his house site to the north of plaint schedule property. Thus, though the plaintiff alleged in his plaint that the northern boundary is his own site and though Ex.A1 discloses that the northern boundary for the said Ac.0.02 cents of site is belonging to the plaintiff, according to plaintiff (as P.W.1) the northern boundary for the disputed property is the house site of one Palepu Nagoor. Thus, evidently, he did not mention correct boundaries in the plaint schedule. The property for which he has been agitating is the property for which the northern boundary is that the northern boundary for the said Ac.0.02 cents of site is belonging to the plaintiff, according to plaintiff (as P.W.1) the northern boundary for the disputed property is the house site of one Palepu Nagoor. Thus, evidently, he did not mention correct boundaries in the plaint schedule. The property for which he has been agitating is the property for which the northern boundary is the house of Palepu Nagoor, whereas he mentioned the northern boundary as his own site in plaint schedule. Thus, his own evidence casts any amount of doubt with regard to the identity of actual disputed property. Hence, Ex.A1 cannot be connected to the suit property. Moreover even if it is connected to the suit property the extent in Ex.A1 is Ac.0.02 cents whereas the plaint schedule property is Ac.0.04 cents. Even on said ground Ex.A1 cannot be connected to the suit property. Ex.A1 does not establish the title or right or interest to the Ac.0.04 cents of plaintiff to the plaint schedule property as referred supra the evidence of P.W.1 is highly vague." 14. The learned appellate Judge after elaborately discussing contents of Ex.A1 held that it is not related to suit schedule property but it is only in respect of Ac.0.02 cents of site whereas plaintiff is claiming Ac.0.04 cents of site in the suit and appellant/plaintiff not obtained any document evidencing purchase of plaint schedule property, due to that Ex.A1 cannot be connected to the suit property, which failed to consider by the trial Judge. The observation of learned trial Judge that D.W.2 stated in his cross-examination that they never tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and they never obstructed the possession of the plaintiff over the said property itself shows that plaintiff is in possession of plaint schedule property is perverse and it is against to the settled principles of law that plaintiff cannot rely on the weaknesses of defendants case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited, 2014(2) ALD 157 judgment dated 07.01.2014 wherein it is held at para 12, which reads as under: "12. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.” 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited (referred supra) explained legal position with regard to whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for declaration of title and possession and held that in a suit for declaration if the plaintiffs have to succeed, they must do so on the strength of their own title. 16. The appellant seeking relief of declaration and injunction basing on title deed which he failed to produce either before the trial Court or in the appellate Court and produced Ex.A1 true extract of sale deed dated 18.07.1963 which is not pertaining to the suit schedule property, which rightly observed by the learned appellate Judge. On reappraisal of evidence, the learned appellate Judge held that there is a dispute with regard to identity of property also, which failed to establish by the appellant/plaintiff. This Court in Krishna (died) and others Vs. Indian Institute of Economics, Hyderabad and others, 2011 SCC Online AP 412 = (2011) 6 ALD 174 (DB) held that it is the bounded duty of the plaintiff to establish identity of the property in dispute in declaratory claim in para - 21 of the ruling, it is stated that “In a suit for declaration of title, in respect of immovable property, the plaintiff has to give description of the property sufficient to identify it and, if the property can be identified by boundaries, they must be given. This essential rule of pleading has been given a go-by by the plaintiff.......” 17. The learned appellate Judge also observed discrapancy of boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 with that of oral evidence and no survey number is mentioned in the plaint schedule property to identify the same. 18. In Yerra Venkatesh Vs. Nathi Mallesh and others, 2013(2) ALT 396 wherein this Court while dealing with an order for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC held at para Nos.15 and 16 that "Thus, as matters stood, the identity of the suit plot was not established, be it through the survey number or through its boundaries. The trial Court seems to have placed reliance only upon the plaintiff's sale deed and drew the inference that he thereby proved his possession over the suit plot as on the date of the suit. Such an inference was not borne out on facts in the light of the contradictions indicated supra. In the absence of clear proof that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit plot as on the date of the suit, it is manifest that he failed to cross the first hurdle of proving his prima facie case based on possession. The appellate Court was therefore justified in setting aside the injunction granted by the trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with this exercise by the appellate Court." 19. In the present case also there is no reference of survey number and title deeds on which appellant/plaintiff claiming declaration not produced before the trial Court and it is not the case of appellant that he purchased plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 dated 18.07.1963 from the vendors stated therein. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 18.06.1963 and 09.03.1978 and he also purchased another Ac.0.02 cents of house site apart from plaint schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 18.09.1967 from one Patta Muthyalamma for Rs.100/- and not obtained sale deed, which is said to be custom in the community of 'Agnikula Kshatriya' obtaining sale deeds on white paper. But the said custom though pleaded is not proved by the appellant and even otherwise, both the Courts below concurrently held that said site of Ac.0.02 cents is different from the suit schedule property. 20. But the said custom though pleaded is not proved by the appellant and even otherwise, both the Courts below concurrently held that said site of Ac.0.02 cents is different from the suit schedule property. 20. The learned appellate Judge is justified in setting aside the decree and judgment granted by the trial Court as judgment of trial Court was based on wrong application of law and facts, which rightly interfered by the learned appellate Judge. The appellant/plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the plaint schedule property to grant relief as claimed by him in the plaint. 21. Basing on the material and evidence, learned appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence and reversed finding of trial Court and dismissed the suit. 22. In these circumstances, finding no such questions that require consideration in this second appeal, much less, substantial question of law not as pointed out for the appellant, this second appeal has to be dismissed. 23. This Court is satisfied that this is not an instance where Section 100 CPC has to be applied nor interference is warranted with the decree and judgment of the appellate Court that reversed the decree and judgment of the trial Court. 24. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of appellate Court. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 25. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stand closed. Interim orders granted if any, stand vacated.