JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 13.06.2022 in A.S.No.28 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 28.03.2019 in O.S.No.134 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili. 2. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondent herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.134 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, with a prayer for declaration to declare that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property; restraining the defendants and their men and their henchmen and their successors in interest from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of the permanent injunction as a consequential relief; and, alternatively for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, in case, if on any reason, if the relief of injunction is not granted to the plaintiff. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, allowed the suit in part. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.28 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram. The learned II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants 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.134 of 2013, is as follows: (i) The plaint schedule property concerned under S.Nos.54/15 to 21 and 53/13 and 9 to an extent of Ac.3-90 cents situated in Rangarayapuram Revenue area originally belonged to Inuganti people and it was purchased by the 1 st defendant under a registered sale deed, dated 10.05.2005. subsequently, she was in need of money to discharge her sundry debts and to meet her family necessities, she sold the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff for Rs.6,63,000/- under a registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 and put the plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of the said property. She discharged the earlier registered mortgage debt with the part of sale consideration under registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010. The 1 st defendant handed over the original link document, dated 10.05.2005 and the Photostat copy of receipt, dated 16.08.2010 to show the discharge of registered mortgage debt on the plaint schedule property at the time of execution. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights raising wet and dry crops with the assistance of his father-in-law. Subsequently, in the year 2011, the plaintiff shifted his residence to Vizianagaram and personally done the cultivation operations on the suit schedule land. Recently, the value of the land increased and the plaintiff wants to sell away the plaint schedule property to the third party in order to improve his other assets, he filed an application before the Tahsildar, Bobbili for mutation of his name in the revenue records under the provisions of Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act. When the Tahsildar, Bobbili conducted enquiry, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 made a false claim and cast a colour over the title and possession of the plaintiff to the plaint schedule property. (ii) The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have no right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property and they are nothing to do with subsequent to the registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The revenue records clearly shows that the name of the plaintiff got entered after verifying the registered sale deed in respect of his title, possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The endorsement made by the Tahsildar is not sustainable under law. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff has no other option except to approach the Court for seeking relief of declaration of his title and consequential relief of injunction and other reliefs against the defendants. 7. The 1 st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff has no other option except to approach the Court for seeking relief of declaration of his title and consequential relief of injunction and other reliefs against the defendants. 7. The 1 st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: Plaintiff was never in possession of the plaint schedule property. The Tahsildar, Bobbili after conducting thorough enquiry and on verification of the revenue records made endorsement on 21.07.2013 in its letter No.310/2013/ A. The plaintiff or his father never cultivated the plaint schedule property at any point of time. The 1 st defendant never intended to sell the plaint schedule property to anybody much less to the plaintiff at any point of time. When she required money, requested the plaintiff to lend money and on that the plaintiff demanded to mortgage the plaint schedule property in his favour and accordingly, she signed the document for mortgaging the plaint schedule property, but she never executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff might have played fraud and obtained the sale deed instead of mortgage deed from the 1 st defendant. The 1 st defendant never executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff much less the sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 as alleged by the plaintiff. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner having title to the schedule mentioned property or not? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants over the plaint schedule property or not? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff as prayed for nor not? (4) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.21 were marked. 10. (4) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.21 were marked. 10. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in part by granting relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of plaint schedule property. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.28 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: 1) Whether the impugned decree and judgment, dated 28.03.2019 of the trial Court is sustainable either factually or legally? 2) To what relief? 11. The learned II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram i.e. the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants in O.S.No.134 of 2013 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the appeal, on 13.10.2022, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated in granting decree for possession, when the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction and asserts possession over the schedule property and in alternatively sought for recovery of possession of schedule property? (2) Whether non-examination of father-in-law of plaintiff, who played active role in getting Ex.A.2 registered sale deed would vitiate the judgments of the Courts below? 13. Heard Sri Ch. Venkaiah, learned counsel, representing on behalf of Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel for the respondent. 14. (2) Whether non-examination of father-in-law of plaintiff, who played active role in getting Ex.A.2 registered sale deed would vitiate the judgments of the Courts below? 13. Heard Sri Ch. Venkaiah, learned counsel, representing on behalf of Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel for the respondent. 14. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence: In a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh , AIR 1993 SC 398 , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar , AIR 1999 SC 471 , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 15. The undisputed facts are the 1 st defendant is owner of plaint schedule property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 10.05.2005 i.e., Ex.A.1 on paying sale consideration of Rs.1,84,000/- to her vendors. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.2 registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 from the 1 st defendant. It is relevant to say the 1 st defendant is wife of the 2 nd defendant and 3 rd defendant is son of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and all the defendants are belongs to one family. 16. It is relevant to say the 1 st defendant is wife of the 2 nd defendant and 3 rd defendant is son of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and all the defendants are belongs to one family. 16. The plaintiff approached the trial Court for seeking relief of declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property, therefore, the burden is heavily casts on the plaintiff to prove his title in the plaint schedule property. The title of the plaintiff is based on a registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 said to have been executed by the 1 st defendant. The original registered sale deed is filed and got marked as Ex.A.2 through the plaintiff. The original sale deed of the vendor of the plaintiff i.e., 1 st defendant is also filed and got marked as Ex.A.2 through the plaintiff. 17. It is trite law that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weaknesses, if any, of the case set up by the defendant would not be a ground to grant the relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. The onus to prove title to the schedule property in question was on the plaintiff. It was incumbent on the part of the Court to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit property, the Court is also bound to enquire or investigate that question on first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit. 18. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court. 18. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that she discharged the earlier registered mortgage with the part of sale consideration under registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 and after made enquiries, he purchased the plaint schedule property from the 1 st defendant for a valid consideration of Rs.6,63,000/- and the 1 st defendant handed over the original link document, dated 10.05.2005 and the Photostat copy of receipt, dated 16.08.2010 to show the discharge of registered mortgage to the plaint schedule property at the time of execution of registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 to him and the original of receipt, dated 16.08.2010 is with the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and since its purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights and raising wet and dry crops on it with the assistance of his father-in-law and realizing the same. In order to prove the sale deed of the plaintiff under Ex.A.2, the plaintiff examined the second attestor in Ex.A.2 sale deed as P.W.2. The first attestor in Ex.A.2 sale deed is the 2 nd defendant, who is none other than the husband of the vendor of the plaintiff. In order to prove the sale deed of the plaintiff under Ex.A.2, the plaintiff examined the second attestor in Ex.A.2 sale deed as P.W.2. The first attestor in Ex.A.2 sale deed is the 2 nd defendant, who is none other than the husband of the vendor of the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.2 goes to show that prior to the sale transaction under sale deed, dated 16.08.2010, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed a registered simple mortgage deed, dated 27.05.2006 vide document No.2728/2006 in favour of Dharmavarapu Ravanamma by borrowing an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and subsequently on 28.03.2009 the said mortgage debt was transferred in his favour by the said Dharmavarapu Ravanamma after receiving the amount of Rs.2,30,000/- from him under a registered deed of transfer, dated 28.03.2009 vide document No.946/2009 and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 discharged the said debt under the said deed of transfer of mortgage debt by paying Rs.2,30,000/- to him under receipt, dated 16.08.2010 which was executed by him as a registered receipt of discharge of mortgage debt covered by the mortgage transfer deed vide document No.946/2009 and he gave the original of said receipt to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the certified copy of the registered receipt, dated 16.10.2018 shown to him is pertaining to the discharge receipt executed by him in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of transfer of mortgage debt and the 1 st defendant executed the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff to the suit lands after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.6,63,000/- in his presence and in the presence of her husband i.e, the 2 nd defendant and the 2 nd defendant signed as first attestor and himself attested as second attestor to the registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.2 registered sale deed and vendor also handed over her original sale deed under Ex.A.1 to the plaintiff on the date of registration of the sale deed under Ex.A.2. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendants, their evidence is not shattered on the material aspects of the case. 19. The contention of the appellants is that the 1 st defendant executed a mortgage deed on 16.08.2010 but not a sale deed. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendants, their evidence is not shattered on the material aspects of the case. 19. The contention of the appellants is that the 1 st defendant executed a mortgage deed on 16.08.2010 but not a sale deed. Execution of Ex.A.2 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not at all disputed by the 1 st defendant. The 2 nd defendant is the husband of 1 st defendant, who is none other than the first attestor in Ex.A.2 sale deed. The 1 st defendant i.e., D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross examination itself that the signature on Ex.A.2 sale deed belongs to her and her husband is the first attestor in Ex.A.2 sale deed and her husband is well educated and well-versed with all the transactions. The 1 st defendant i.e., D.W.1 admits at the time of execution of Ex.A.2 sale deed, father-in-law of the plaintiff is present on behalf of the plaintiff being an agent got participated on behalf of the plaintiff and he has given the amount on the date of sale deed from out of which she discharged the mortgage debt to P.W.2. The same is supported by P.W.2. It was admitted by 1 st defendant i.e., D.W.1 in her evidence in cross examination itself that father-in-law of the plaintiff paid total consideration under Ex.A.2 sale deed on the date of Ex.A.2. P.W.2 the second attestor in Ex.A.2 sale deed is supported the same but the 1 st defendant did not choose to examine her husband i.e., first attestor in Ex.A.2 sale deed as a witness to prove that Ex.A.2 document is a mortgage transaction but not sale transaction. D.W.2 i.e., the 3 rd defendant is not at all a witness to Ex.A.2 sale deed transaction. Original sale deed of 1 st defendant is filed and got marked as Ex.A.1 through plaintiff. Original sale deed of the plaintiff is also filed and got marked as Ex.A.2 through plaintiff. 20. D.W.2 i.e., the 3 rd defendant is not at all a witness to Ex.A.2 sale deed transaction. Original sale deed of 1 st defendant is filed and got marked as Ex.A.1 through plaintiff. Original sale deed of the plaintiff is also filed and got marked as Ex.A.2 through plaintiff. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the plaintiff has filed the suit for seeking relief of declaration and also permanent injunction and he prayed alternative relief of recovery of possession and framing of the suit itself is bad and he would further contend that the trial Court is not supposed to grant alternative relief of recovery of possession since the main relief sought by the plaintiff is for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and that the appeal may be allowed. 21. As seen from the material on record on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff by granting the relief of declaration of title and also recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee since alternative relief of recovery of possession is ordered in addition to the declaration of title. The plaintiff has paid the deficit court fee. The decree passed by the learned trial Judge also reflects the same. After paying the required deficit court fee, decree was prepared by the office of the trial Court, the same is reflected in the decree passed by the leaned trial Judge. It is well settled that “rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure”. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff sought the main relief of declaration of title and also consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering into the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff sought the main relief of declaration of title and also consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering into the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. Learned trial Judge on appreciation of entire evidence on record, granted main relief of declaration of title and also the relief of recovery of possession and directed the appellants herein to deliver possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and directed the plaintiff to pay a deficit court fee for relief of recovery of possession. The decree passed by the learned trial Judge also goes to show that the plaintiff paid the deficit court fee and the same is reflected in the decree itself. 22. Ex.A.1 sale deed goes to show that the 1 st defendant purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed, the same is not at all disputed by the appellants. Execution of Ex.A.2 sale deed by 1 st defendant is also not at all disputed by the 1 st defendant. It is the specific contention of the 1 st defendant that she executed a mortgage deed but not a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is not the case of none of the parties that the 1 st defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and executed a mortgage deed. Furthermore, no notice is issued by the 1 st defendant to the plaintiff that the plaintiff fraudulently obtained Ex.A.2 document from the 1 st defendant, no suit has been filed by the appellants for cancellation of Ex.A.2 registered sale deed, dated 16.08.2010 till so far, therefore, in such a case, Ex.A.2 sale deed is a valid document. Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 clearly goes to show that on the date of sale transaction, the vendor of the plaintiff i.e., 1 st defendant handed over her original title deed and the plaintiff filed the same before the trial Court and got it marked as Ex.A.1. It is the specific case of the 1 st defendant that she purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1 in the year 2005. It is the specific case of the 1 st defendant that she purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1 in the year 2005. Ex.A.2 sale deed of the plaintiff goes to show that the 1 st defendant herein purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1 sale deed and on the date of Ex.A.2 sale deed the original of Ex.A.1 sale deed handed over to the plaintiff by the 1 st defendant. Furthermore, the vendor of the plaintiff i.e., 1 st defendant admitted in her evidence in cross examination itself that she received sale consideration under Ex.A.2 sale deed. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff proved the title in the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants. Therefore, the concurrent findings arrived by the learned trial Judge as well as the learned First Appellate Judge are perfectly sustainable under law and there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings given by the learned trial Judge as well as the learned First Appellate Judge. Therefore, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. The appellants/defendants are directed to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within a period of three (03) months from the date of this judgment; failing which the plaintiff is entitled to take necessary steps as per law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.