JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 08.05.2023 in A.S.No.5 of 2015 on the file of learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 04.05.2015 in O.S.No.74 of 2012 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli. 2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.74 of 2012 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.74 of 2012 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli, with a prayer to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 the Government authorities being the Divisional Forest Officer, Kadapa and Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty, their successors-in-office and their subordinates from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of mining activities being carried on the plaint schedule land and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli, decreed the suit granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their men, agents, successors-in-office and their subordinates from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of mining activities being carried on by him for digging out phyrophillite minerals on the plaint schedule property. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants / appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. - 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.74 of 2012, is as follows: The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 25.02.2012 under which the plaintiff was granted mining lease for mining of Pyrophillite mineral for a period of 20 years in the plaint schedule land. In pursuance of the above said G.O., the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa has executed a registered lease deed in favour of the plaintiff on 03.05.2012 for the plaint schedule property. In pursuance of the above said G.O., the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa has executed a registered lease deed in favour of the plaintiff on 03.05.2012 for the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa in his proceedings dated 05.05.2012 granted mining work orders in favour of the plaintiff permitting the plaintiff to do mining activities in the plaint schedule property and in pursuance of the same, the plaintiff carried out certain developments like laying of roads, preparation of platform for the smooth execution of mining activities and the plaintiff incurred considerable expenditure. The total extent of the suit S.No.2865 of Nuliveedu village is Ac.334.40 cents, out of which, the plaintiff was granted mining lease for an extent of Ac.59.05 cents in the said survey number. The Tahsildar, Galiveedu Mandal has submitted his report that the total land in Sy.No.2865 of Nuliveedu village measuring Ac.334.40 cents is not reserved for depressed people or Military persons and that this land is not a Reserved Forest Land as per the R.S.R. and village No.3 Accounts of the Revenue Department and after duly satisfying with the report of the Revenue Department, the Government of Andhra Pradesh finally issued G.O.Ms.No.48 under which, the plaintiff was granted mining lease for the plaint schedule land for mining of Pyrophillite minerals for a period of 20 years. The 2 nd defendant about three days back, came to the plaint schedule land and tried to obstruct the plaintiff from carrying out the mining activities, for which the plaintiff replied and submitted that he is carrying out the mining activities legally as per G.O.Ms.No.48 as stated above and at that time, the 2 nd defendant went away. Now the plaintiff is apprehending that the defendants may again come and obstruct him from carrying out the mining activities in the plaint schedule land and being a law abiding citizen, he was left with no other alternative except approaching the Court. Hence, the present suit is filed. - 7. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows: The suit schedule property in S.No.2865 of Nooliveedu village is only an extent of Ac.0.18 cents or Ac.0.17 cents, but not Ac.344.40 cents. Hence, the present suit is filed. - 7. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows: The suit schedule property in S.No.2865 of Nooliveedu village is only an extent of Ac.0.18 cents or Ac.0.17 cents, but not Ac.344.40 cents. The schedule property is part and parcel of Madhavaram reserve forest block, which is notified as reserve forest block under Section 16 of Madras Forest block vide Revenue proceedings No.450, dated 20.08.1892 by the erstwhile Madras State of India. The total extent of Madhavaram reserve forest shows that the total extent is 1894:38 hectares. The 2 nd defendant recently noticed that some unknown persons entered into the reserve forest, laid some approaches and extract some Pyrophillite minerals. The 2 nd defendant and his staff seized Hitachi machine Ex.120 and also seized 333 cubic metals of Pyrophillite minerals. The Assistant Beat Officer, incharge of Forest Beat Officer of Madhavaram beat registered a case in U.D.O.R.No.02/2012/13, dated 25.11.2012 for the above said offence punishable under Section 20(i) (c) (v) (vi) (vii) (ix) (x) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967. The 1 st defendant addressed a letter to the District Collector, Y.S.R. District on 01.12.2012 to direct the concerned authorities to issue (1) No.25 Nooliveedu village sheet 10, (2) R.S.R. Extract of S.No.2865 of Nooliveedu revenue village and (3) F.M.B. Survey sketch of S.No.2865 of Nooliveedu village. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Galiveedu issued F.M.B. of S.No.2865 of Nooliveedu revenue village. As the R.S.R. is not available in Tahsildar Office, Galiveedu, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Kadapa issued R.S.R. and No.25 Nooliveedu sheet 10 pertaining to Nooliveedu revenue village. As seen from F.M.B., S.No.2865 of Nooliveedu revenue village is only Ac.0-18 cents and as per R.S.R., the land in S.No.2865 is only Ac.0-17 cents. The District Collector, Y.S.R. District also directed the Tahsildar, Galiveedu, R.D.O., Kadapa, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Kadapa and the defendants to have joint inspection of S.No.2865 of Galiveedu Mandal, compartment No.724, 725 and 726 of Madhavaram revenue forest of Rayachoty range on 15.12.2012. In anticipating the said act, the plaintiff filed suit before the Court, obtained injunction and issued notice dated 29.11.2012 to the defendants and Tahsildar, Galiveedu, not to make attempts to joint visit the S.No.2865 of Nooliveedu revenue village. In anticipating the said act, the plaintiff filed suit before the Court, obtained injunction and issued notice dated 29.11.2012 to the defendants and Tahsildar, Galiveedu, not to make attempts to joint visit the S.No.2865 of Nooliveedu revenue village. It clearly shows that the plaintiff trespassed into the reserve forest of Madhavaram beat and doing illegal mining. The topography map of Madhavaram reserve forest clearly shows that the plaintiff is doing mining activities in the Madhavaram reserve forest in compartment Nos.724, 725 and 726. All the above documents clinchingly establish that the plaintiff trespassed into Madhavaram reserve forest and doing illegal mining by destroying boundary marks, clearing the forest growth, which are in Schedule I, II, III of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Before obtaining any mining lease, it is mandatory to obtain necessary permission from the Forest department as laid down in Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The plaintiff shall not commence mining operations in any reserve forest and necessarily he should obtain permission from DFO, Kadapa. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to do mining operations in the plaint schedule land as per G.O.Ms.No.48,dt.25.02.2012 issued by the Government of India? - (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? (3) Whether the alleged interference is true? (4) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A24 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, no oral or documentary evidence adduced. 10. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.5 of 2015 before the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to do mining operations in the plaint schedule land as per G.O.Ms.No.48, dt.25.02.2012 issued by the Government of A.P.? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? (3) Whether the alleged interference is true? (4) Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? (3) Whether the alleged interference is true? (4) Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law? or the same is required to be modified / set aside / remanded? (5) To what relief? 11. The learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants / appellants and in favour of the plaintiff / respondent and dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.74 of 2012 filed the present second appeal before this Court. - 12. After institution of the second appeal by the defendants in the suit, this Court ordered notice to the respondent before admission and the said notice is served on the respondent / plaintiff. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for the appellants / defendants and heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff. 13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial question of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi , [ (2007) 8 SCC 155 ] , the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi , [ (2007) 8 SCC 155 ] , the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. - 14. The defendants having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of CPC, it is for them to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellants have shown any substantial question of law. The contention of the appellants is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 16. The case of the plaintiff is that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 25.02.2012 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the plaintiff was granted mining lease for conducting mining operations for a period of 20 years in the plaint schedule land. 16. The case of the plaintiff is that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 25.02.2012 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the plaintiff was granted mining lease for conducting mining operations for a period of 20 years in the plaint schedule land. The plaintiff further pleaded that in pursuance of the said G.O. issued by the Government, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa had executed a registered lease deed in favour of the plaintiff on 03.05.2012 in respect of the plaint schedule property and thereafter, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa granted mining work orders in favour of the plaintiff permitting the plaintiff to do the mining activities in the plaint schedule property. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is unchallenged by the defendants. Though they filed a written statement before the trial Court, but they did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff and that the evidence of P.W.1 remain unchallenged. The unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property by virtue of a registered lease deed said to have been executed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa, dated 03.05.2012 for a period of 20 years. - 17. The case of the appellants / defendants is that the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of Madhavaram reserve forest and with the fabricated documents, the plaintiff is trying to operate mining work in the forest land in compartment Nos.724, 725 and 726 and causing environmental damage and ecological destruction and that the suit for bare injunction is not at all maintainable. To prove the defence put forth by the appellants in the written statement, no piece of evidence is adduced by the appellants. Furthermore, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence viz., Exs.A.1 to A.24, but for the reasons best known to the appellants, they did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is remains unchallenged. 18. To prove the defence put forth by the defendants in the written statement, the defendants did not enter into the witness box. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is remains unchallenged. 18. To prove the defence put forth by the defendants in the written statement, the defendants did not enter into the witness box. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao and another , [MANU/SC/0172/1999 = (1999) 3 SCC 573 ] . In the said case law, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct……” As stated supra, though the defendants have taken specific pleas in the written statement that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of Madhavaram reserve forest and with the fabricated document, the plaintiff is trying to operate mining work in the forest land, which causes environmental damage and ecological destruction, the defendants did not enter into the witness box to prove the defence put forth by them in the written statement. 19. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants would contend that without issuing notice under Section 80 CPC, the plaintiff approached the Court for seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the Government and that the suit for permanent injunction itself is not at all maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff would contend that they have filed an application under Section 80(2) of CPC along with the suit to dispense with the notice under Section 80 CPC and after allowing the said application, the trial Court numbered the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that the said plea of non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC is not yet raised by the appellants either in their written statement or before the first appellate Court and suddenly, the said contention of non-issuance of notice has been taken by the appellants during the course of arguments in the second appeal. In fact, the defendants did not raise any contention in the written statement itself that the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC to the Government and in order to prove the same, no evidence is adduced by the defendants and the same is not at all raised before the first appellate Court. If the issuance of notice under Section 80 (1) CPC before filing of the suit is waived by the defendants, without raising any objection about the same in the written statement, then in that case, there is no impediment for the Court to entertain the suit of the plaintiff without notice under Section 80(1) of CPC. 20. The evidence on record clearly proves that by virtue of the G.O. issued by the Government, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology executed a registered lease deed for a period of 20 years in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and also carrying mining operations. The apprehension of the plaintiff is that the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The same is reiterated in his evidence itself, which is unchallenged by the defendants. It is well settled that a suit for injunction simplicitor is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. It is evident that the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property is a lawful possession, which is by virtue of the registered lease deed executed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, which is much preceded by G.O. issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the possession of the plaintiff is lawful possession and his possession has to be protected by way of permanent injunction. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly granted the relief of permanent injunction. On re- appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned first appellate Judge also confirmed the finding arrived by the learned trial Judge. - 21. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly granted the relief of permanent injunction. On re- appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned first appellate Judge also confirmed the finding arrived by the learned trial Judge. - 21. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of CPC. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 22. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , [ AIR 2006 SC 1975 ] . In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of CPC. - 23. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.