JUDGMENT : T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Respondent / Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 31.07.2003, in A.S.No.6 of 1999 on the file of II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) reversing the decree and Judgment dated 03.08.1998, in O.S.No.149 of 1993 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. The Respondent / Appellant is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.149 of 1993 for recovery of Rs.8,838.48 ps, the value of 49 bags of paddy, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization towards the value of Martha due from the Defendant. The Appellant / Respondent is the Defendant in the said suit. 3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.149 of 1993 is expedient to mitigate any potential confusion and better comprehend the case. 4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows : The Plaintiff, a temple, owned a wetland measuring Ac.7.97 cents in R.S.No.59, located in Rajupet village. In a public auction held on 01.08.1990, the Defendant was declared the highest bidder, offering 128 bags of paddy for the sarva crop, payable by the end of January each year, along with 42 bags and 50 kilograms of paddy for the second crop. Anticipating the approval of the lease, Defendant began cultivating the land following his letter, dated 04.08.1990. Subsequently, the lease was officially approved by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, for three years covering the periods 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. Despite a clear agreement to pay the specified maktha by the end of January, Defendant only paid 79 bags of paddy, leaving an outstanding balance of 49 bags. The Plaintiff accepted the 79 bags of paddy without prejudice to its rights. Despite multiple demands for payment, the Defendant failed to settle the arrears. Consequently, notices were issued to the Defendant on 10.04.1992, 24.04.1992, 09.11.1992, 09.12.1992 and 08.03.1993. However, the Defendant did not comply with any of these notices. Plaintiff claims the right to recover the outstanding arrears of 49 bags of paddy, along with accrued interest at a rate of 12% per annum. 5. Consequently, notices were issued to the Defendant on 10.04.1992, 24.04.1992, 09.11.1992, 09.12.1992 and 08.03.1993. However, the Defendant did not comply with any of these notices. Plaintiff claims the right to recover the outstanding arrears of 49 bags of paddy, along with accrued interest at a rate of 12% per annum. 5. In the written statement, Defendant acknowledged his tenancy of the schedule lands but refuted most of Plaintiff's claims, asserting that he consistently paid the maktha. The Defendant further contends that the Executive officer, K.R.N. Sharma, demanded additional payments and threatened eviction when refused. The Executive Officer filed the present suit claiming arrears of 49 bags of paddy and sought eviction, despite the Defendant’s complaints about the officer’s conduct going unaddressed. The Defendant noted that the lease auction occurred late on 01.08.1990, preventing timely planting. Consequently, his crop suffered extensive damage from various diseases. He notified the Executive Officer of the damage on 22.11.1990, requesting an inspection. Following this, the Trust Board Members inspected the land and assured him of a remission. After paying 79 bags of paddy on 31.01.1991, based on assurances of remission, he received no further response regarding the remaining 49 bags. The Executive officer later requested additional payments to expedite the remission process, leading to threats when the Defendant could not comply. On 30.01.1993, Defendant filed A.T.C (S.R.No.617/1993,dt. 30.01.1993) against Plaintiff for the remission of 49 bags of paddy payable for the year 1990-91. Still, the Special Officer, Eluru, on an erroneous appreciation of facts, rejected his application on 27.02.1993. Against that order, he preferred Appeal A.T.A.No.55 of 1993 on 05.06.1993, while the Plaintiff's Executive Officer initiated the present suit with false allegations. Defendant requested the dismissal of the suit, asserting that there was no formal agreement for interest and stating that he never received the Plaintiff’s notices. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues : (i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.6,860/- towards arrears of maktha of 49 bags and interest thereon at Rs.1978-48 ps? (ii) Whether the rate of paddy is at Rs.140/- per bag during 1990-91? (iii) Whether the Defendant is entitled to claim remission of maktha of 49 bags payable during 1990-91 as the crop was damaged for reasons stated in the written statement? (iv) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the A.T.C., and A.T.A., filed by the Defendant for remission? (iii) Whether the Defendant is entitled to claim remission of maktha of 49 bags payable during 1990-91 as the crop was damaged for reasons stated in the written statement? (iv) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the A.T.C., and A.T.A., filed by the Defendant for remission? (v) To what relief? 7. During the trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.20 on behalf of the Plaintiff. Conversely, on behalf of the Defendant, D.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.10sss. 8. After the conclusion of the trial and considering the arguments presented by both parties, the trial Court, in O.S.No.149 of 1993, dismissed the suit with costs. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff filed an Appeal in A.S.No.6 of 1999 on file of the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, framed the following points for consideration : i. Whether the Appellant-temple is entitled for recovery of the suit claim as prayed for? ii. To what relief both parties are entitled? 10. The 1st Appellate Court, after scrutinizing oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, allowed the Appeal without costs by its judgment dated 31.07.2003, thereby decreeing the suit in O.S.No.149 of 1993 with costs for Rs.8,838-48 ps with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on Rs.6,860/- from the date of filing of the suit before the trial Court. Assailing the same, the Respondent/Defendant preferred the present Second Appeal. 11. I heard Sri K. Sita Ram, learned Counsel representing the Appellant / Respondent / Defendant and Sri Pulipati Radhika, learned Counsel for the Respondent / Appellant / Plaintiff. 12. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant asserts that in a suit for the recovery of money, the Plaintiff should independently prove his case, rather than relying on any lapses in the Defendant’s case. The 1st Appellate Court failed to provide adequate reasons for reversing the trial Court’s well-reasoned judgment. The learned counsel further asserts that the disallowance of the application for remission of rent is unrelated to the Plaintiff’s independent claim for recovery of money. The 1st Appellate Court failed to see that the Plaintiff is entitled to defend his claim for recovery of money independently of dismissal of remission application. Furthermore, the application for remission of rent was dismissed without proper numbering, and the same issue arose in the Appeal. The 1st Appellate Court failed to see that the Plaintiff is entitled to defend his claim for recovery of money independently of dismissal of remission application. Furthermore, the application for remission of rent was dismissed without proper numbering, and the same issue arose in the Appeal. Consequently, due to changes in the law, the Defendant could not succeed in the Appeal before this Hon’ble Court. 13. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff put forth an argument that the 1st Appellate Court correctly appreciated the facts of the case and reached a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the 1st Appellate Court do not require any modifications. 14. Based on the Appellant’s contentions, the following substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal : Whether the suit for recovery of money by a landlord temple is maintainable against the Defendant independently of the statutory provisions contained in A.P. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules framed thereunder? 15. Before delving into the matter, since the Appeal is filed under Sec.100 CPC, this Court must see the scope of Section 100 of C.P.C. 16. In H.P. Pyarejan V. Dasappa (dead) by L.Rs. and others, 2006 (3) ALT 41 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that : Under Section 100 of the Code (as amended in 1976), the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the judgments of the courts below is confined to hearing on substantial questions of law. Interference with the finding of fact by the High Court is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence (see Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997) 4 SCC 713 ) and Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait (1997) 5 SCC 438 )…… 17. Considerations in Section 100 of C.P.C., arise only when there is a substantial question of law and not mere such questions of law or one based on facts. However, it has to be borne in mind that in case of misapplication of law and improper appreciation of evidence on record, particularly the documentary evidence, it is the bounden duty of the High Court sitting in Second Appeal to consider such questions which are substantial in nature in terms of law. 18. In the Second Appeal, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C., this Court must confine itself to the substantial questions of law involved in the Appeal. 18. In the Second Appeal, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C., this Court must confine itself to the substantial questions of law involved in the Appeal. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings of the Courts below, where the Courts below recorded the findings judicially by appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. Further, the substantial questions of law are the sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction. This Court cannot substitute its own opinion unless the findings of the Courts below are manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. 19. In the matter at hand, it is admitted that the Plaintiff-temple possesses a tract of wetland, specifically encompassing an area of 7.97 acres, identified by R.S.No.59. During the public auction conducted on 01.08.1990, the Defendant emerged as the highest bidder for the leasehold rights about the aforementioned land. As per the terms of the lease, Defendant is obligated to remit 128 bags of paddy by the conclusion of January each year for the sarva crop, alongside an additional 42 bags and 50 kilograms of paddy for the second crop. Notably, this lease was duly ratified by the Commissioner of Endowments for the fiscal years 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93. 20. The Plaintiff's primary assertion is that the Defendant remitted only 79 bags of paddy for the fiscal year 1990-91, which the Plaintiff accepted without prejudice to its rights. Defendant has not contested the fact that he failed to pay the remaining bags of paddy. However, the crux of the dispute lies in the Defendant's claim that he submitted an application seeking remission of the maktha for that same year, asserting his entitlement to the remission of 49 bags of paddy. He contends that he was unable to yield the anticipated crop due to crop failure resulting from a natural calamity. It is pertinent to note that the application for the remission of the 49 bags, submitted by the Defendant to the Special Officer, was ultimately rejected. The Defendant, testifying as DW.1, indicated that an appeal against this rejection is currently pending before the learned Principal District Judge of West Godavari. 21. It is pertinent to note that the application for the remission of the 49 bags, submitted by the Defendant to the Special Officer, was ultimately rejected. The Defendant, testifying as DW.1, indicated that an appeal against this rejection is currently pending before the learned Principal District Judge of West Godavari. 21. The trial Court adjudicated the matter by dismissing the suit, determining that the petition for remission of maktha for the year 1990-91 remains under consideration in the Appellate stage before the Principal District Judge of West Godavari, specifically in A.T.A.No.55 of 1993. In light of this circumstance, the trial Court concluded that it could not be asserted that Defendant had defaulted in the payment of maktha. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court, the Plaintiff preferred Appeal Suit No.6 of 1999. 22. In its judgment dated 31.07.1993, the 1st Appellate Court noted that the Defendant had failed to submit any documentation evidencing the allowing of the pending A.T.A. Additionally, the 1st Appellate Court remarked that the Defendant did not furnish any substantiating evidence to demonstrate that his inability to yield crops was attributable to natural calamities, pest infestations, or any other mitigating factors. Taking these observations into account, the Appellate Court ultimately allowed the Appeal and decreed in favour of the Plaintiff's suit. 23. In this Second Appeal, the Appellant has not contended that A.T.A. No.55 of 1993 remains pending, nor has he provided a copy of this Appeal. As the 1st Appellate Court aptly noted, the Defendant has not presented any evidence to substantiate his claim of crop failure due to natural calamities. Moreover, it is not asserted that the appeal he filed in A.T.A.No.55 of 1993 was successful. Given the Defendant's inability to demonstrate that he incurred losses from crop failure in 1991, coupled with the fact that his application for remission was not granted, this Court is of the view that the Defendant/Appellant is obligated to pay the amount claimed in the plaint. 24. The Defendant has not referenced any relevant legal provisions to substantiate his claim that the suit for recovery of money by the Plaintiff temple is not maintainable. The onus of proof lies with Defendant to demonstrate that he could not remit the maktha due to crop failure; however, he has failed to provide any substantiation for this assertion. The Defendant's lack of supporting evidence undermines his stance in this dispute. The onus of proof lies with Defendant to demonstrate that he could not remit the maktha due to crop failure; however, he has failed to provide any substantiation for this assertion. The Defendant's lack of supporting evidence undermines his stance in this dispute. It is inadequate for him to deflect responsibility onto the Plaintiff by claiming that the Plaintiff has not presented independent evidence to bolster its case. 25. This Court discerns no perversity in the Judgment rendered by the learned 1st Appellate Court. The findings and reasoning provided by the 1st Appellate Court are consistent with established legal principles. The 1st Appellate Court meticulously reviewed all evidence on the record, omitting nothing pertinent, nor did it consider any extraneous material. Consequently, the Judgment of the learned 1st Appellate Court is upheld. The Second Appeal lacks merit in its entirety. 26. In these circumstances, finding no such questions that require consideration in the Second Appeal, which is a much less substantial question of law as pointed out for the Appellants, this Second Appeal has to be dismissed. 27. As a consequence, this Second Appeal is dismissed without costs. The judgment dated 31.07.2003 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in A.S.No.6 of 1999 stands confirmed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.