JUDGMENT : B. SYAMSUNDER, J. 1. This matter is taken up for hearing at the admission stage at request of both sides. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. K. Venkatesh as well as learned counsel for R1/plaintiff, Mr. Vinod Kumar Tarlada. 2. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Rajamahendravaram, are the appellants. R1 Corporation is the plaintiff in the suit. R2 to R6 are the D4, D7, D10 to D12 in the suit. The appellants and R2 to R6 and R1 Corporation herein after called as defendants and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff instituted suit against D1 to D12 seeking relief of mandatory injunction directing D1 to D9 and all persons claiming the similar rights in the plaint schedule land shown in red color in the rough plan, to remove temporary constructions made by them. It is the contention of the plaintiff that they are statutory Corporation represented by its Executive Engineer who intended to construct bus station and depot at Gokavaram village and on the request of plaintiff, D10/District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada as per the Ex.A.1 directed D12, Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram to hand over the land to an extent of Ac. 2.20 cents in S. No. 288 at Gokavaram Village to the plaintiff which was delivered to the plaintiff Corporation under Ex.A2, dated 13.09.1979. Since then Plaintiff Corporation is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that once again they approached D10/District Collector, Kakinada to alienate the remaining extent of land in S. No. 288 of Gokavaram village and D10/District Collector considered the request made by them and instructed D12/Tahsildar, Gokavaram to consider the same as per the Ex.A.3. letter dated 06.12.1983 and entire extent of land in S. No. 288 measuring Ac. 9-17 cents including the land which was allotted to them to an extent of Ac. 2.20 cents handed over to them by delivery receipt dated Ex.A.4 dated 29.12.1983. The plaintiff submits that they constructed bus depot and they are in possession and enjoyment of the land covered in S. No. 288 of Gokavaram Village and kept the land vacant on eastern side and western side as shown in the plaint plan which is to an extent of Ac. 2-41 cents and Ac. The plaintiff submits that they constructed bus depot and they are in possession and enjoyment of the land covered in S. No. 288 of Gokavaram Village and kept the land vacant on eastern side and western side as shown in the plaint plan which is to an extent of Ac. 2-41 cents and Ac. 2-35 (red coloured portion). The plaintiff submits that D1 to D9 started proclaiming that the defendants have got right to take possession of the red marked portion of the plaint plan as defendants are authorized by D12 Mandal Revelue Officer, Gokavaram to take possession of the same, due to that they represented the same to the D10. D10 sent urgent enquiry into the matter but no action is taken by D11 and D12 and taking advantage of the silence of D10 to D12, D1 to D9 raised temporary constructions in the part of the land allotted to the plaintiff. Hence they filed the suit for Mandatory Injunction. 4. D1 to D3 and D5 to D12 filed written statement stating that 70 out of 80 including D1 to D9 are land less poor persons of Gokavaram village obtained pattas through D12/Tahsildar. After taking consent from D10/District Collector as per letter dated 03.06.2003 addressed by Land Acquisition Officer, APSRTC, who have unconditionally handed over of the disputed red colour land, thereafter Government also granted loan to all the patta holders through A.P. Housing Board and they constructed thatched houses. They pray to dismiss the suit. 5. Defendant No. 12 filed written statement, which is adopted by D10 and D11 where they have admitted handing over the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff Corporation on the basis of market value, but subsequently, plaintiff Corporation failed to pay market value but constructed bus station in the extent of Ac. 4.41 cents, thereafter D1 to D9 and others made a representation to the Government to issue pattas and thereafter remaining land was taken over by the Government and Government issued proceedings to D1 to D9 and other beneficiaries. They pray to dismiss the suit. 6. Trial Court basing on the above pleadings, settled the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of filing the suit in a representative capacity as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction against D1 to D9 and others as prayed for? 3. They pray to dismiss the suit. 6. Trial Court basing on the above pleadings, settled the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of filing the suit in a representative capacity as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction against D1 to D9 and others as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against D1 to D9 and others as prayed for? 4. Whether the defendants 1 to 9 and others were in possession of the property as pattadars as contended by them in their written statement? 5. Whether the defendant No. 12 had taken re-delivery of possession as contended by him in his written statement? 6. To what relief? 7. The parties went to trial. On behalf of plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of defendants, D1 to D4 were examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked. 8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit by granting mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, against D1 to D9. 9. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, D1 to D3, D5, D6, D8 and D9 presented A.S. No. 116 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Court, Rajamahendravaram, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In these circumstances, present second appeal is presented. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though plaint schedule property has been allotted to the plaintiff for construction of the bus station at Gokavaram Village, which land was not fully utilized by them and not paid market value of the land to the Government though requested, due to that Government has granted pattas to D1 to D9 for the remaining land where bus station is not constructed. He would further submit that written statement of D12/Mandal Revenue Officer of Gokaavaram also shows that pattas have been granted to D1 to D9, due to that it cannot be questioned in civil Court. He prays to admit the appeal and allow the same and dismiss the suit. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that as per Ex.A1 to A3, proceedings, land to an extent of Ac. He prays to admit the appeal and allow the same and dismiss the suit. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that as per Ex.A1 to A3, proceedings, land to an extent of Ac. 9.17 cents in S. No. 288 allotted to the plaintiff Corporation for construction of bus station, wherein the portion of the land bus station was constructed and in the remaining land, bus station depot was constructed and remaining land is also still in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff which is meant for future development. He would further submit that both Courts below rightly held no resumption proceedings issued by revenue authorities resuming the land from plaintiff Corporation and no pattas filed by D1 to D9 to show that Government has issued pattas for disputed property in their favour, due to that trial Court rightly decreed the suit which confirmed by the First Appellate Court. He would further submit that in view of not filing any DKT Pattas granted in favour of D1 to D9 no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and finding of facts in both Courts needs no interference in the second appeal. He prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. The appellants herein who are the D1 to D3, D5, D6, D8, D9 pray to admit the appeal on following substantial question of law: “(a) Whether the Courts below are justified in decreeing suit in respect of assigned lands for which house site pattas were granted to the appellants in view of the specific bar for institution of suit under Sec. 8(2) of Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977? (b) Whether the Courts below are justified in granting the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the constructions made by the appellants in pursuance of the house site pattas granted by the Government under weaker sections scheme after fallowing the due procedure laid under the rules? (c) Whether Courts below are justified in holding that the A.P.S.R.T.C. is the owner of the property though the Corporation failed to pay the market value to the Government?” 13. As per Section 100 C.P.C. this Court, can interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court, if it is satisfied that the case involves substantial question of law. A finding of fact recorded by appellate Court is binding on this Court unless there is error of law in such finding. As per Section 100 C.P.C. this Court, can interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court, if it is satisfied that the case involves substantial question of law. A finding of fact recorded by appellate Court is binding on this Court unless there is error of law in such finding. Even a wrong finding of fact is not sufficient to constitute a question of law. 14. In Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs. and Others vs. Saraswati and Others in Civil Appeal No. NIL of 2022 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8736 of 2016) Judgment dated 22.09.2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of Section 100 CPC and laid down principles relating to Section 100 CPC at Para 33, which reads as under: “33. The principles relating to Section 100 of CPC relevant for this case may be summarized thus: (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision based on no evidence” it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” 15. Both Courts gave concurrent findings with regard to the delivery of possession of Plaint schedule property to plaintiff Corporation by the Government who are also shown as D10, D12 in the original suit. A perusal of Judgments of Courts below which show that they relied on Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 delivery receipts issued by the revenue authorities to the plaintiff Corporation delivering the land in Sy. No. 288 including the plaint schedule property. Ex.A5 plaint plan shows entire extent of Ac. 9.17 cents in R.S. No. 288 delivered to plaintiff Corporation signed by Revenue Inspector, Korukonda and also Junior Engineer of the plaintiff Corporation. Ex.A6 plaint plan also shows the plaint schedule land and building thereon. It is not in dispute that plaint schedule property and other land in S. No. 288 were allotted to plaintiff Corporation by the Government and also delivered possession of the land by following due procedure laid down under law. The contention of D1 to D9 is that as they are land less poor persons D12/Mandal Revenue Officer, granted pattas to themselves and others to the remaining land which is not utilized by the plaintiff Corporation. But they have not filed any DKT house site pattas granted by D12 in their favour, to support their contention. The contention of D1 to D9 is that as they are land less poor persons D12/Mandal Revenue Officer, granted pattas to themselves and others to the remaining land which is not utilized by the plaintiff Corporation. But they have not filed any DKT house site pattas granted by D12 in their favour, to support their contention. The contention of the D12 Mandal Revenue Officer, Gokavaram is that as plaintiff Corporation has not paid market value of the land which is delivered to them under Ex.A4, they issued proceedings in favour of D1 to D9. They have not stated specifically in written statement that DKT pattas have been granted to D1 to D9 and others in respect of the said land which possession of the same delivered to plaintiff Corporation under Ex.A4. As rightly observed by both Courts that when any land has been given to the authority or person, if Government wants to resume land they have to follow procedure laid down under law by issuing resumption proceedings which failed to file by D12 in the original suit. 16. Learned trial Judge also observed that “no order is filed before the Court that the land neither resumed nor take back the possession from the plaintiff Corporation and in the absence of land resume orders, either D10 or D12 are nothing to do with the property covered in Ex.A.2 and A.4 and once the property is vested to the plaintiff Corporation it cannot be divested without following procedure.........” It is also observed by the trial Court that though letter has been addressed by the Regional Manager under Ex.B.2 to the Land Acquisition Officer who has not taken any steps and still possession of the plaint schedule property remains with the plaintiff having title over the same. It is also not in dispute that land in S. No. 288 of Gokavaram Village, was delivered to the plaintiff Corporation under Ex.A2, A4 proceedings, wherein plaintiff Corporation constructed bus depot and complex during the year 1985-86 by keeping land to an extent of Ac. 4.41 cents vacant for future expansion which is within the possession of the plaintiff Corporation having right and title, due to that plaintiff Corporation sought for equitable relief of injunction. 4.41 cents vacant for future expansion which is within the possession of the plaintiff Corporation having right and title, due to that plaintiff Corporation sought for equitable relief of injunction. It is settled law that person seeking relief of injunction, should show the violation of his right by the act complained of and if that act is carried into effect it must result in infringement of their legal rights. Though, in a suit for injunction, primary question to be considered is one of the possession on the date of filling of the suit, the plaintiffs have to establish that they have got legal right to get equitable relief of injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff shall also establish that the defendants are not justified in interfering with their legal right and possession over the suit schedule property. 17. In the present case, plaintiff right in plaint schedule property is not in dispute and their possession is also established as per Ex.A2 and A4 proceedings issued by revenue authorities. The defendants 1 to 9 who are claiming that DKT Pattas have been granted to them have not filed any document to support their contention. The revenue authorities who are also arrayed as defendants in the suit, not filed any proceedings said to be issued in favour of D1 to D9 and others, granting permission or pattas to them allotting land which plaintiff said to be not paid market value after allotment and delivery of possession of land to them. As rightly held by both Courts that when market value as agreed by plaintiff Corporation said to be not paid to the Government authorities, it is for them to take necessary steps and they have no authority to issue any proceedings or patta in favour of 3rd parties without resuming land by following due procedure of law laid down under law. When no DKT pattas stands in the name of D1 to D9 and others which also they have not been filed by the defendants, there is no question of attracting the provisions of Section 8 of AP Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers Act, 1977. When no DKT pattas stands in the name of D1 to D9 and others which also they have not been filed by the defendants, there is no question of attracting the provisions of Section 8 of AP Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers Act, 1977. Both Courts also justified in granting mandatory and permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff against D1 to D9, which they have not produced any house site pattas and rightly held that plaintiff is rightful owner and in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in view of Ex.A2, A4 proceedings and in view of admission of D10 to D12 allotting land in Sy. No. 288 of Gokavaram Village to plaintiff Corporation. Basing on material and evidence available on record, both Courts rightly appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, finding no such questions that require consideration in this second appeal, much less substantial question of law, or appreciation of evidence as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, this second appeal has to be dismissed. 18. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I direct both parties to bear their own Costs. 19. Consequently, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.