JUDGMENT : These appeals are filed against the Common Judgment and decree dated 28.02.2022 in A.S.Nos.20, 21 and 22 of 2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII-Additional District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, in which the Common Judgment and decree dated 31.01.2017 in O.S.Nos.16 & 17 of 2014 and O.S.No.295 of 2006, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, was confirmed. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants raised the following substantial questions of law: “a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Courts below are vitiated in that the conclusions were arrived at on mere surmises and conjectures without any factual or legal basis and without independently considering the plaintiffs case? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Judgments of the Courts below are unsustainable in view of the erroneous approach and a misreading of evidence resulting in grave injustice? 3. The parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.295 of 2006, for the sake of convenience. 4. Initially, plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.295 of 2006 for declaration of title and permanent injunction, against defendants. O.S.No.16 of 2014 was filed by defendant No.38 in O.S.No.295 of 2006, for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties restraining the plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.295 of 2006, from interfering with the suit schedule properties and O.S.No.17 of 2014 was filed by defendant No.20 in O.S.No.295 of 2006 for perpetual injunction against plaintiff No.1. 5. The brief facts of the case are that originally one Sale Mallaiah was the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule properties. He along with his sons i.e., plaintiffs No.3 and 4 constituted a Hindu Joint Family. Plaintiff No.2 is the wife of said Mallaiah, who died on 02.01.1987, leaving behind his wife and children as his legal heirs and successors. Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 sold the suit schedule property to plaintiff No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 03.05.2006 vide document No.1195 of 2006, for a valuable sale consideration. The plaintiff No.1 in turn entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.19 agreeing to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,27,370/- and received advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The plaintiff No.1 in turn entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.19 agreeing to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,27,370/- and received advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The said property shall be registered within two months from the date of agreement of sale, after receiving the balance sale consideration. Though the plaintiff No.1 was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, defendant No.19 was not ready and also got issued a legal notice to plaintiff No.1 denying his title as there were earlier sale transactions and the said suit schedule lands were converted into plots and sold to many third parties, as such plaintiff No.1 filed a suit for declaration as he purchased from rightful owners i.e., plaintiffs No.2 to 4, for valuable sale consideration. There are 40 defendants in the suit and defendants No.39 and 40 are subsequently added as legal representatives of defendant No.1, who died during the pendency of the suit. Out of 40 defendants, defendants No.1, 2, 39 and 40 as one set, defendants No.4, 8 and 17 as one set, defendant No.6 as one set, defendant No.12 as one set and defendant No.19 as another set contesting the suit and other defendants remained ex-parte. 6. During the life time of defendant No.1, he along with defendant No.2 filed a common written statement denying all the contentions of the plaint. They stated that they are not aware of the sale deeds executed among the plaintiffs. Plaintiffscolluded together to knock away the property, which was already sold by Sale Mallaiah @ Domala Mallaiah along with his brother Domala Sattaiah to them under a registered General Power of Attorney vide documents No.187 and 188 of 1986 dated 15.10.1986 in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.245 and 279 respectively. Defendants in turn made the suit schedule property into plots and executed registered sale deeds to various persons. Since then, the respective plot owners were in possession and enjoyment of the plots. Plaintiffs with an intention to knock away the entire suit schedule properties, created false documents and filed the suit, as plaintiffs No.2 to 4 have no better title to transfer the property to plaintiff No.1. There was no cause of action for filing the suit and the legal notice issued by defendant No.19 does not create any cause of action. Plaintiffs with an intention to knock away the entire suit schedule properties, created false documents and filed the suit, as plaintiffs No.2 to 4 have no better title to transfer the property to plaintiff No.1. There was no cause of action for filing the suit and the legal notice issued by defendant No.19 does not create any cause of action. Plaintiffs suppressed the material facts to extract money from the defendants as the prices of lands were escalated and thus requested the Court to dismiss the suit. 7. Defendant No.6 has also filed her independent written statement and stated that she purchased plot No.120/B, admeasuring 300 Sq.yrds in Sy.Nos.245/A/2, 275 and 279 from the General Power of Attorney holder i.e.,G.Suryanarayana Murthy, of Domala Mallaiah and Domala Sathaiah, through a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1986. From then onwards, she was in possession and enjoyment of the property as original owner. Defendant No.8 in her written statement stated that Domala Mallaiah and Domala Sathaiah along with others executed G.P.A in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy and she purchased a land admeasuring 300 Sq.yrds for a valuable consideration from him through a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1987. From then onwards, she was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant No.12 in her written statement stated that she purchased the plot No.117/B admeasuring 300 Sq.yrds from the G.P.A of Mallaiah and Sathaiah. From then onwards, she was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendants No.4 and 17 have filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the defendant No.8. The defendant No.19 had filed a separate written statement and stated that he purchased the suit schedule property from plaintiff No.1 under a contract of sale dated 04.05.2006 believing the documents shown to him by plaintiff No.1. Later, he came to know that plaintiff No.1 has no right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and the said property was already sold by its original ownersthrough their G.P.A. As the contract was not a legal and enforceable document, he got issued legal notice and requested the Court to dismiss the suit and also filed another suit vide O.S.No.129 of 2006, for recovery of amount from plaintiff No.1. 8. 8. O.S.No.16 of 2014 was filed by defendant No.38 against plaintiff No.1 for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties consisting of five plots each admeasuring 300 Sq.yrds, situated in Sy.Nos.245/A and 279, which is a part of suit schedule properties in O.S.No.295 of 2006. He stated that he became the owner of the plot bearing No.112/A in Sy.No.245/A admeasuring 300 Sq.yrds, plot No.125/B, 124/B, 121 and 122/B admeasuring 300 Sq.yrds each in Sy.No.279, situated at Sriram Nagar Colony, Chitkul (v), Patancheru Mandal. Sale Mallaiah and Sale Sathaiah were the original pattedars for the lands in Sy.No.279 admeasuring Ac.1-12 gts and Sy.No.245/A admeasuring Ac.1-03 gts in the same village. They executed general power of attorney in favour of Peetani Satyanarayana vide document No.188 of 1986 dated 15.10.1986 and he made the lands into plots and executed sale deeds to different persons. Defendant No.38 was one of the purchasers of the above mentioned plots totalling 1500 Sq.yrds.So also, original pattedar for the lands in Sy.Nos.245/A admeasuring Ac.1-03 gts was D.Mallaiah son of Narsaiah and executed general power of attorney in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy vide registered G.P.A.No.261 of 1985 dated 07.11.1985. He converted the said land into plots and executed sale deeds to different persons. The defendant No.38 has given Agreement-Cum-General Power of Attorney deed with possession bearing No.23162 of 2006 dated 06.10.2006 by his vendors. He got executed sale deed vide document No.9267 of 2008, dated 04.07.2008. He purchased plot bearing No.112/B admeasuring 300 Sq.yrds in Sy.No.245/A. He further stated that plaintiff No.1 has nothing to do with the suit schedule properties. When plaintiff No.1 was making hectic efforts to dispossess him, he filed the suit for injunction. Plaintiff No.1 filed a detailed written statement in O.S.No.16 of 2014, denying all the allegations. 9. Defendant No.20 had filed a separate suit vide O.S.No.295 of 2006, for perpetual injunction against plaintiff No.1, restraining him from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule plots bearing Nos.189 and 168/A admeasuring 600 Sq.yrds in Sy.No.245/E, situated at Chitkul (v), of Patancheruv Mandal, Medak District. The said suit was transferred to the learned Principal District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, vide T.O.P.No.425 of 2013, dated 17.12.2013, and joint trial was conducted in three matters. He stated that originally one Reddigari Narsimha Reddy, was the owner of the said plots. The said suit was transferred to the learned Principal District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, vide T.O.P.No.425 of 2013, dated 17.12.2013, and joint trial was conducted in three matters. He stated that originally one Reddigari Narsimha Reddy, was the owner of the said plots. He gave G.P.A to one G.Suryanarayana Murthy in the year 1985, and through the said G.P.A made it into plots and sold to one Satyanarayana, who in turn executed agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A in her favour and got sale deed executed in her favour. She further stated that plaintiff No.1 was stranger to the suit schedule property and making hectic efforts to dispossess her, but in the written statement filed by plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.17 of 2014, he denied all the allegations. 10. Originally, O.S.Nos.129 and 130 of 2012 were re-numbered as O.S.Nos.16 and 17 of 2014, when they were transferred by Order dated 17.12.2013 passed in O.P.Nos.425 and 426 of 2013 and all the suits were clubbed together and recorded common evidence in O.S.No.295 of 2006. The plaintiff No.1 was examined himself as P.W.1 and also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on behalf of the plaintiffs and marked Exs.A1 to A23 on their behalf. Defendant No.38 was examined himself asD.W.1 on behalf of the defendants and marked Exs.B1 to B13 on their behalf. Plaintiffs contended that Sale @ Domala Mallaiah, who was the husband of plaintiff No.2 and father of plaintiffs No.3 and 4 was the original pattedar and possessor of the entire suit schedule properties. After the death of the said Mallaiah, plaintiffs No.2 to 4 became the legal heirs and successors of the said properties. They relied upon the revenue records which were marked as Exs.A7 to A10, A13 and A16 to A23 to show that Sale @ Domala Mallaiah was the pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule properties. Subsequently, the name of plaintiff No.2 was mutated in the revenue records. Plaintiff No.1 purchased the property from plaintiffs No.2 to 4 under Ex.A4 and got his name mutated in the revenue records. The trial Court observed that most of the defendants remained ex-parte. Though, some of the defendants filed their written statements, they did not choose to appear before the Court and give evidence in support of their pleadings. The only contesting defendant was defendant No.38. The trial Court observed that most of the defendants remained ex-parte. Though, some of the defendants filed their written statements, they did not choose to appear before the Court and give evidence in support of their pleadings. The only contesting defendant was defendant No.38. Mallaiah and Sathaiah executed G.P.A under Exs.B2 to B4, authorizing them to sell the properties to various prospective buyers. Accordingly, G.P.A holder developed the land, converted the land into plots and sold the plots to defendants No.3 to 38. Even the defendantNo.38 filed Exs.B1 to B13, he did not file his written statement in O.S.No.295 of 2006, but the trial Court considered his pleadings in O.S.No.16 of 2014 as his pleadings in O.S.No.295 of 2006, as all the matters are clubbed together and joint trial was conducted and documents filed by him were discussed in detail. 11. It was further observed that though one of the G.P.A holders i.e., defendant No.2 was alive, he did not choose to enter into witness box to speak about Exs.B2 to B4. So also, defendants No.39 and 40, who are legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.1, did not enter into witness box to speak about Exs.B2 and B3 and thus documents were not proved. So also, Exs.B5 to B9 and B11 were not proved by examining the parties concerned. It was also observed that as per Exs.A14 and A15, Mallaiah alone purchased the properties in Sy.Nos.279 and 245/A from his respective vendors and thus trial Court held that plaintiffs established their case and thus they are entitled for declaration. In view of the said findings, permanent injunction sought for by defendants No.38 and 20 in O.S.Nos.16 and 17 of 2014 respectively, was rejected and accordingly declared the plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.295 of 2006 as owners anddefendants were restrained from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said Order, appeals were preferred and the first appellate Court considering the arguments of both sides and documents on record and on elaborate discussion confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, present appeals are preferred. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellants herein mainly contended that Sale Mallaiah and Domala Mallaiah are different persons and they are not one and the same. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, present appeals are preferred. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellants herein mainly contended that Sale Mallaiah and Domala Mallaiah are different persons and they are not one and the same. In the link documents, his name was shown as Domala Mallaiah, but in the plaint, his name was shown as Sale Mallaiah and thus identity of the party was not established. 13. The learned Counsel for the respondents herein/plaintiffs contended that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C, cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, unless such findings are perverse and based on no evidence. It is the settled law that the second appellate Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C cannot even interferewith the erroneous finding of fact howsoever gross the error seems to be committed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. Defendants No.1, 2, 6, 8, 12 and 19, who filed written statements in O.S.No.295 of 2006, did not choose to enter into witness box and gave evidence in support of their pleadings. In the absence of evidence, pleadings of defendants No.1, 2, 6, 8, 12 and 19 in their written statements cannot be said to be proved. The defendant No.38 in O.S.No.295 of 2006, who remained ex-parte, after six years filed O.S.No.129 of 2012 and it was re-numbered as O.S.No.16 and 2014. No issues were framed in O.S.No.295 of 2006 or in O.S.Nos.16 and 17 of 2014, regarding whether Sale Mallaiah and Domala Mallaiah are one and same or not. For the first time in the second appeal, a ground was taken that Sale Mallaiah and Domala Mallaiah were different persons. He also contended that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C cannot entertain a new plea in the second appeal and it amounts to excess of its jurisdiction. 14. Learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs.Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2010) 13 SCC 216 in which it was held that “it has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in the section must be strictly fulfilled before a second appeal can be maintained and no court has the power to add to or enlarge those grounds. A second appeal cannot be decided merely on equitable grounds as it lies only on a substantial question of law, which is something distinct from a substantial question of fact. The Court cannot entertain a second appeal unless a substantial question of law is involved, as the second appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous findings of fact based on an appreciation of the relevant evidence. The existence of a substantial question of law is a condition precedent for entertaining the second appeal; on failure to do so, the judgment cannot be maintained. The existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 100 CPC. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kirpa Ram (Deceased) through legal representatives and others Vs. Surenra Deo Gaur and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 935 in which the following guidelines were framed: “i) On the day when the second appeal is listed for hearing on admission, if the High Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved, it shall dismiss the second appeal without even formulating the substantial question of law; ii) In cases where the High Court after hearing the appeal is satisfied that the substantial question of law is involved, it shall formulate that question and then the appeal shall be heard on those substantial question of law, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the respondent; iii) In no circumstances the High Court can reverse the judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court without formulating the substantial question of law and complying with the mandatory requirements of section 100 CPC.” 15. The learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi and others, (2016) 3 SCC 78 in which it was held that “Perversity has been the subject matter of umpteen number of decisions of this Court. The learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi and others, (2016) 3 SCC 78 in which it was held that “Perversity has been the subject matter of umpteen number of decisions of this Court. It has also been settled by several decisions of this Court that the first appellate Court, under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is the last court of facts unless the findings are based on no evidence or perverse.” He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu (dead) by Lrs. And others, (2001) 9 SCC 521 in which it was held that “the position would be different if the High Court had the jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence. In such a situation the High Court might have come to a different conclusion. But the High Court in exercise of power under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the erroneous finding of fact howsoever gross the error seems to be.” 16. It is not every question of law that could be permitted to be raised in second appeal. The parameters within which a new legal plea could be permitted to be raised, are specifically stated in sub-section (5) of Section 100 CPC. Under the proviso, the Court should be “satisfied” that the case involves a “substantial question of law” and not a mere “question of law”. The reason for permitting the substantial question of law to be raised, should be “recorded” by the Court. Further, (a) it is the duty cast upon the High Court to formulate the substantial question of law involved in the case even at the initial stage; and (b) that in (exceptional) cases, at a later point of time, when the Court exercises its jurisdiction under the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 CPC in formulating the substantial question of law, the opposite party should be put on notice thereon and should be given a fair or proper opportunity to meet the point. Proceeding to hear the appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal is illegal and is an abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on court, and even after the formulation of the substantial question of law, if a fair or proper opportunity is not afforded to the opposite side, it will amount to denial of natural justice. The above parameters within which the High Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC should always be borne in mind. 17. In view of the above citations and arguments of the respondents/plaintiffs’ Counsel, the points raised by the Counsel for appellants/defendants are answered as follows: a) No issue was framed in O.S.No.295/2006 or in O.S.No.16 of 2014 or in O.S.No.17 of 2014, whether Sale Mallaiah and Domala Mallaiah are one and the same or not. For the first time in the present appeal a ground was taken that Sale Mallaiah and Domala Mallaiah are different persons. b) Defendants No.1 and 2 are claiming as GPA holders of Domala Mallaiah. In O.S.No.295 of 2006, they filed written statement and stated that Sale Mallaiah was also known as Domala Mallaiah and it reads as follows: “In reply to para No.1 these defendants are not aware of the sale deeds executed among the plaintiffs and which are created for the purpose of filing the suit to knock away the suit schedule property which is already sold by Sale Mallaiah @ Domala Mallaiah along with his brother Domala Sathaiah to these defendants under registered General Power of Attorney vide document No.187 of 1986 dated 15.10.1986 and document No.188 of 1986 dated 15.10.1986, in respect of Sy.Nos.245 and 279 respectively.” c) Defendant No.38 in O.S.No.295 of 2006, had filed O.S.No.16 of 2014. The averments of the plaint in O.S.No.16 of 2014 also shows that Sale Mallaiah and Domala Mallaiah are one and the same and it reads as follows: “Original pattadars were Male @ Sale Mallaiah and Sattaiah, sons of Narsaiah, R/o.Chitkul village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District in Sy.No.279 admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts of land and pattadar executed GPA in favour of Pithani Satyanarayana, S/o. Nageswara Rao vide document No.188 of 1986, dated 15.10.1986.” d) Defendant No.38 who was examined as D.W.1 deposed that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.295 of 2006, executed GPA in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Plaintiff No.2 is the wife of Sale Mallaiah, whereas plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are the sons of Sale Mallaiah that means defendant No.38 in his chief examination admitted that plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are the persons, who executed GPA in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are none other than the legal heirs of Sale Mallaiah as described in the plaint in O.S.No.295 of 2006, which reads as follows: “The plaintiffs have filed a false suit claiming to be the owners of the suit schedule property as they colluded with revenue authorities by making false representations obtained patta passbooks and title deeds basing on that plaintiff No.1 created a sale deed in his favour upon that he filed untenable suit since the suit schedule property already sold by father of plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and husband of plaintiff No.2 under GPAs through defendants No.1 and 2.” e) Defendant No.38 along with two others filed A.S.No.22 of 2017 against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.295 of 2006. In the grounds of the said appeal, defendant No.38 clearly stated that Sale Mallaiah and Sale Sathaiah, who are the original owners of the suit land appointed Pithani Satyanarayana as G.P.A, whereas G.P.A document shows that Domala Mallaiah executed G.P.A. It clearly shows that Sale Mallaiah and Domala Mallaiah are one and the same. Further, the father name of Sale Mallaiah is Narsaiah. Even in G.P.A documents, the father’s name of Domala Mallaiah was also shown as Narsaiah. It is the settled law that the admissions inpleadings are conclusive proof and no further evidence is required and thus even as per the documents and evidence of appellants herein, there is no dispute regarding the fact that Sale Mallaiah and Domala Mallaiah are one and the same persons and thus their argument at the stage of second appeal cannot be considered. There is no substantial question of law in the second appeal and thus this Court finds that there are no merits in these second appeals and accordingly they are dismissed. 18. In the result, the present second appeals are devoid of merits and are dismissed, confirming the concurrent findings of both the first appellate Court and the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.