JUDGMENT : (LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.) The Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2024, passed by the X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar in A.S.No.287 of 2013, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, in O.S.No.1133 of 2001 was confirmed. 2. The appellant Nos.1 to 15 are plaintiff Nos.1 to 15 in the suit, since the appellant No.7 died, the appellant Nos.16 to 18 were added as legal representatives and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The brief facts of the case, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 15 filed a suit vide O.S.No.1133 of 2001 against defendant Nos. 1 to 5 seeking the relief of alteration of entries in the revenue records and mentioning the name of defendant Nos.1 to 4 as pattedars in respect of land in survey Nos.278/1 & 278/2 of Kuntlur village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Originally, the suit was filed by plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 against defendant Nos.1 to 4. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 5 expired, as such plaintiff Nos.7 to 12 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Nos.3 and 5 and plaintiff Nos.13 to 15 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.5 is brought on record as legal representative of deceased defendant No.1. Further, plaintiff No.7, who was brought on record as legal representative of plaintiff No.3 also expired. However, the legal representatives of plaintiff No.7 are already on record as plaintiff Nos.8 and 9. 3.1 In the plaint, it is averred that plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 are the sons of late P.Bal Krishna Reddy and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are sons of late P.Ram Reddy. The late P.Pulla Reddy, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy are real brothers and sons of one late Venkat Reddy and they succeeded to agricultural lands and houses left out by their father. It is averred that P.Pulla Reddy got separated from the joint family and thereafter, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy also got separated. The late P.Pulla Reddy, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy are real brothers and sons of one late Venkat Reddy and they succeeded to agricultural lands and houses left out by their father. It is averred that P.Pulla Reddy got separated from the joint family and thereafter, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy also got separated. However, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy jointly acquired properties in survey Nos.278/1 to 278/6 at Kuntlur village and Late P.Ram Reddy acted as karta and got mutated his name in the revenue record and the properties were purchased by both the brothers. In the year 1961, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krisha Reddy partitioned joint family properties of agricultural lands at Hayathnagar and Kuntlur and rice Mill at Hayathnagar and the oral partition was reduced into writing on 21.08.1961, as per which, the land in survey Nos.278/1 to 278/6 of Kuntlur village were allotted to P.Bal Krishna Reddy. Though, P.Bal Krishna Reddy due to family necessities sold lands in survey Nos.278/3 to 278/6 to Ramalingam under agreement of sale to an extent of Acs.11-14 gts and Acs.16-31 gts in survey Nos.278/1 and 278/2, the said Ramalingam filed a suit vide O.S.No.52 of 1962 before the District Munsif, Hyderabad against P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy. 3.2 In the said suit, the defendants therein filed written statement admitting the claim of Ramalingam regarding allotment of share to P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy. After the death of P.Ram Reddy in 1978, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 secretly without knowledge of P.Bal Krishna Reddy seems to have initiated proceedings for grant of succession for Sy.Nos.278/1 & 278/2 taking advantage of continuation of name of P.Ram Reddy knowingly that fell to the share of P.Bal Krishna Reddy. Though the same were not shared and MRO without giving notice to the occupants passed orders on 10.08.1988 granting succession in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Having come to know about the orders of MRO, the father of the plaintiff P.Bal Krishna Reddy preferred an appeal before RDO, and the RDO vide order dated 25.09.1993 dismissed the appeal directing P.Bal Krishna Reddy to seek remedy before the Civil Court, however, no further steps were taken by the plaintiffs; The defendants with a malafide intention made an application to MRO for issuance of pattedar pass book and the same were granted without notice to plaintiffs and hence, the suit. 4. 4. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 5 were set ex parte and defendant No.1 filed written statement denying all the allegations and admitted his relationship with the plaintiff. However, denied the partition of late Pulla Reddy and also denied that P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy had joint mess and denied that the properties were purchased from joint family funds and contended that the suit regarding correction of entries is not maintainable. It is also denied that the lands in survey Nos.278/1 to 278/6 at Kuntlur village were allotted to the share of P.Bal Krishna Reddy and plaintiffs intentionally did not show the existence of lands and the survey Nos. 278/1 to 278/6 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.11-42 gts. It is further averred that as per documents of partition, the father of the plaintiff was allotted land to an extent of Acs.39-36 gts and the said extent was already sold by P.Bal Krishna Reddy in favour of Rama Lingam and the said Ramalingam filed a suit in the year 1962 and judgment and decree was passed in his favour. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim more than what was allowed to their father. It is further averred that the revenue authorities after verifying relevant records entered the name of defendant No.1 in the records. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation or alteration of entries in the revenue records in respect of names of defendants by incorporation to the name of plaintiff as prayed for? ii) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, to substantiate their claim, plaintiffs got examined P.Govardhan Reddy as PW1 and P.Madhava Reddy as PW2 and EXs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, P.Ashok Reddy was examined as DW1. However, no exhibits were marked. 7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013. 8. On behalf of the defendants, P.Ashok Reddy was examined as DW1. However, no exhibits were marked. 7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013. 8. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- (i) The PW1 even admitted in his cross examination that the suit land is in the name of P.Ram Reddy as pattedar and admitted that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are sons of P.Ram Reddy and he also admitted that the property standing in the name of father will devolve upon the sons in the revenue records. He admitted that the appeal preferred by their father under Ex.A1 is dismissed with an observation that they should approach civil court for determination of rights and they did not prefer any revision against the orders of Ex.A1. Though an appeal preferred by the father of the plaintiffs was dismissed in the year 1993 with an observation that they must approach civil court for determination of rights though orders were passed in the year 1993, but the said P.Bal Krishna Reddy during his lifetime did not prefer any appeal or revision against the said orders and accordingly he never filed in civil suit seeking declaration of title or declaration that the revenue entries shall be altered. (ii) It is seen that the plaintiffs have also examined one of the witness of the partition as PW.2 and though PW.2 has stated several things in chief affidavit but in the cross examination he stated that he do not know when P.Pulla Reddy, P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy got separated and further stated that kitchen were separated since separation of P.Pulla Reddy. He clearly admitted that the land at Kuntlur village is not ancestral property and it is mentioned in the partition deed that only Ac.39-36 gts fell to the share of P.Bal Krishna Reddy is already sold away to one Ramalingam. He clearly admitted that the land at Kuntlur village is not ancestral property and it is mentioned in the partition deed that only Ac.39-36 gts fell to the share of P.Bal Krishna Reddy is already sold away to one Ramalingam. Having sold away the entire share fell to the share of their father, in what way the plaintiffs are justified in filing this suit at a belated stage when they did not place any material proof to show that further land was remaining in the name of their father in the suit survey number at kuntlur village after excluding the extent of land sold by their father in favour of ramalingam. (iii) It is seen that from the evidence of PW.2 and also from the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that there is no documentary or material evidence to show that the suit survey number ie., Sy.No.278/1 & 278/2 fell to the share of the father of the plaintiffs and they also failed to place any material document or adduce any material evidence to show that after excluding the extent of land sold by their father in favour of ramalingam whether any further land was remaining to the share of their father in kuntlur village or not. Though it is alleged that both P.Ram Reddy and P.Bal Krishna Reddy purchased the suit properties but admittedly there is documentary proof to that effect and there is no document to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the said lands and the plaintiffs have totally failed to establish any title or possession with regarding to the said lands in Sy.No.278/1 or 278/2 and also miserably failed to establish that the said lands in Sy.No.278/1 & 278/2 have fell to the share of their father in the said partition of 1961. 9. By observing as hereinabove, the trial Court opined that there is proper and sufficient evidence in support of defendant’s contentions and that there is no reliable or acceptable evidence on behalf of plaintiffs either to disprove the contentions of defendants or to prove the contentions of plaintiffs. 10. On appeal, the first Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgment dated 19.11.2024, thereby, confirming the Judgment and decree of the trial Court. 11. 10. On appeal, the first Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgment dated 19.11.2024, thereby, confirming the Judgment and decree of the trial Court. 11. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:- “(i) It is an admitted fact that the defendants made an application to MRO, Hayathnagar in File No.B/489/88 for mutation of the names under the ROR Act. The father of the plaintiffs was preferred an appeal against the said proceedings before the RDO and the RDO dismissed the appeal. The appeal copy was marked as Ex.A1. In the appeal it was given a direction to prefer the matter before the civil court for agitating his rights. The father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 did not prefer the appeal. The appeal was ordered dated 25.09.1993. Since 25.09.1993 till the date of the filing of the suit, neither the father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 nor the plaintiffs approached the civil court for declaration of their title. After lapse of 8 years this suit was filed which is barred by limitation under Section 137 of Limitation Act. (ii) The plaintiff no.2 was examined as PW1 and one of the person who as per the case of the plaintiffs was known about the partition in between the father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 and defendant nos.1 to 3 was examined as PW2. The plaintiffs did not mention in the pleadings in each survey number how much of the land was fallen to the share of the father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 6. Even the PW2 also not stated the same thing. It is an admitted fact that one Ramalingam was filed a suit against the father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 and defendant no.1 to 3. The certified copy of plaint in OS No.52/1962 was marked as Ex.A1. PW1 in the cross examination admitted that the suit was filed for the Ac.39-36 guntas and there is no reference of survey number and the extent. The plaintiffs also failed to give the extent of the area as to how much of the land their father was succeeded. The certified copy of plaint in OS No.52/1962 was marked as Ex.A1. PW1 in the cross examination admitted that the suit was filed for the Ac.39-36 guntas and there is no reference of survey number and the extent. The plaintiffs also failed to give the extent of the area as to how much of the land their father was succeeded. Though the plaintiffs contended in the plaint that after partition they were in possession of their respective lands but no pahani was filed by the plaintiffs to show that they are in actual and lawful possession of the suit schedule properties for all these years. Ex.A6 and A7 are the revenue receipts filed from 1984 to 1987 and 1987 to 1989 and admittedly there is no agricultural land tags after 1985 and if it so, how they paid the tax, was not explained by the plaintiffs. PW1 admitted in the cross examination that the land in Kuntlur Village is not ancestral property. Though the partition deed was not marked, but he admitted that Ac.39-36 guntas fell to the share of their father at Kuntlur and the same was sold to the Ramalingam. If it is so, there is no land available for their father. And moreover there is no documentary proof filed by the plaintiffs to show that both Ram Reddy and Bal Krishna Reddy purchased the suit schedule property and the plaintiff admitted in the cross examination that there is no documentary proof to that effect and the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule property fallen to the share of their father and the revenue authorities wrongly mutated the names of the defendant nos.1 to 3. The trial court discussed all these facts elaborately in para no.9 of its judgment. 12. Heard Mr K.R.K.Gargeya, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court misread the provisions of law regarding maintainability of suit for correction of entries in the revenue records and have come to erroneous conclusions. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and first appellate Court are perverse and are contrary to the documents placed on record. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and first appellate Court are perverse and are contrary to the documents placed on record. As per the partition deed dated 21.08.1961, the suit lands were owned by P.Balakrishna Reddy and the same was admitted by P.Ram Reddy in O.S.No.52 of 1962 and this aspect was not properly appreciated by the Courts. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that both the Courts have ignored possession of the said property. As such, mutation was affected without notice to the interested and necessary parties and thus, prayed to allow the appeal. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the suit and the first Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 17. On perusal of the record, it would disclose that both the Courts have correctly held that an appeal was filed by the father of the plaintiffs challenging the succession granted in favour of the defendants and the same was dismissed by RDO vide proceedings dated 25.09.1993 with a direction to the father of the plaintiffs to approach civil Court. Despite specific direction/observation by the RDO, no steps have been taken by the father of the plaintiffs nor by the plaintiffs to challenge the order, dated 25.09.1993 passed by the RDO. Both the Courts further observed that instead of challenging the orders of RDO, a suit was filed in the year, 2013 i.e., 20 years after the orders passed by the RDO, there is no explanation with regard to the same. It would also disclose that though, the plaintiffs have contended that after partition, they are in possession of the respective lands but no material and revenue records have been placed on record. The appellate Court observed that PW.1 in cross examination admitted that land to an extent of Acs.39-36 gts fell to the share of their father and the same was sold to Ramalingam. The appellate Court observed that PW.1 in cross examination admitted that land to an extent of Acs.39-36 gts fell to the share of their father and the same was sold to Ramalingam. With the above observations, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have categorically held that plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim and also failed to prove that the suit schedule property fell to the share of their father and the revenue authorities wrongly mutated the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the revenue record. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the appellate Court. 18. Learned counsel for appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C. 19. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 20. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , [(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546] , the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration. 21. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal. 22. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. 23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.