JUDGMENT : (LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.) This Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 18.09.2024, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in A.S.No.232 of 2013, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 06.06.2013, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar , in O.S.No.770 of 2010 was confirmed. 2. The appellantsherein are plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendantsbefore the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed O.S.No.770 of 2010, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the Plot Nos.36,37, 38 & 39 admeasuring 639.86 Sq.yards in Sy.No.7 at Balapur Village, SaroornagarMandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereafter referred as ‘schedule property’). In the plaint, it is averred that plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the schedule property having purchased the same fromSmt.UmaBai,under a sale deed which was not registered before Sub Registrar Office, but registered before Gram Panchayat on 21.06.1979 by paying a stamp duty of Rs.320.50/-. After purchasing the schedule property, said Uma Bai applied for the construction of house, however, he could not make construction due to lack of time and that the said Uma Bai, perfected her title by adverse possessionand executed gift deed on 27.05.2009 in favour of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.2 along with his mother filed O.S.No.975 of 2008 before II Additional Junior Civil Judge against G. Raghunandhana Chary and four others for perpetual injunction and got temporary injunction in respect of land admeasuring 20 guntas and that defendant No.2 has no claim over the schedule property. Defendant No. 1 interfered with the possession on 10.12.2010 by removing boundary stones andplaintiff lodged a complaint withPahadisharif Police Station on 11.12.2010 and the same was registered as Cr.No.433 of 2010. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendant No. 1 interfered with the possession on 10.12.2010 by removing boundary stones andplaintiff lodged a complaint withPahadisharif Police Station on 11.12.2010 and the same was registered as Cr.No.433 of 2010. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the suit and stated that plaintiff was never in possession of the schedule property and the suit is filed only to grab the schedule land; that suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs alleged to be separate owners of different extents to an extent of 639.86 sq.yds and they did not pay separate court fees; that sale deed under which plaintiffs are claiming ownership is invalid and no title is conferred and the same is not registered before Sub Registrar Office; that document of Uma bai is only agreement of sale and as such this suit is hit by provision of Order II Rule2 of C.P.C., and gift deeds executed on behalf of the plaintiff are also invalid as Uma bai did not have any title. Defendants filed suit in O.S.No.948 of 1998 before I Additional District Judge for Sy.No.7, 265, 276 & 370 of Balapur Village and Sy.No.48 of Roshandowla Village, against B. Yadagiri and others and the same was decreed and appeal is filed in A.S.No.36 of 2003 which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. It is further averred that the land in Sy.No.7, falls under purview of HUDA and no approved layout from HUDA has been filed and however, O.S.No.975 of 2008 is pending and also the receipts issued by the sarpanch dated 21.06.1979 and 22.06.1979, shows that there are lot of variations. It is further averred that there was no cause of action arose against defendant No.2 and he is in actual possession of the suit property and plaintiffs are only trying to obtain injunction against the defendant No.1, to occupy the schedule property and 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:- “(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed for? (2) To what relief?” 6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A34 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1was examinedand Exs.B1 to B8, were marked. 7. (2) To what relief?” 6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A34 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1was examinedand Exs.B1 to B8, were marked. 7. After full-fledged trial andupon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2013. 8. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- “it is seen that one K.Narsing Rao is examined as PW.3 who has said to have purchased four plots from defendant No.2 and they are also registered before BalapurGrampanchayat and stated that he further sold 301 sq.yards to one Muslim person and in the sale deed instead of plot numbers block numbers are mentioned and he is a witness in those documents. It is seen that the PW.3 did not file the said sale deeds alleged to have purchased from defendant No.2 in plot Nos.26, 27, 29 & 30 which are said to have executed on 8.7.1979 and which are said to have registered before BalapurGrampanchayat. He admitted in the cross that he did not get the document registered which is he purchased and stated that he sold away the property to some others. It is seen that plaintiffs have filed total Ex.A1 to A31 and they also marked Ex.A32 to A34 in the cross of DW.1.” 8.1. The trial Court has further observed as hereunder:- “On perusal of evidence, it is seen that defendant No.2 has come into the witness box and deposed and he also faced cross examination and marked the documents. It is seen that when defendant No. 1 and 2 has filed common written stamen and when theyhave jointly contested the case either of the defendant can depose onbehalf of all the defendants, as such the above said ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is seen that though the plaintiffs alleged that a criminal case is registered against the defendantNo.1 but he did not mention as to what is the ultimate result of the said criminal complaint. It is seen that though the plaintiffs alleged that a criminal case is registered against the defendantNo.1 but he did not mention as to what is the ultimate result of the said criminal complaint. The defendant counsel argued that since no separate boundaries are shown for each plaintiff as per their gift deed in the plaint and since the original document under Ex.A8 is not bearing any boundaries and since the said Uma Bai-did not take any steps to get original sale deed from defendant No.2 and since the defendant No.2 has denied the very execution of sale deed under Ex.A8 and as Ex.A8 is only agreement of sale, as such the plaintiffs ought to have sought for declaration of title and since they did not seek any declaration and as the boundaries shown by them are not proper and as the suit property is not demarcated, as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief of perpetual injunction.It is seen that when the very title of the plaintiffs is denied and disputed by the defendant and when the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are in possession of the suit property as per the boundaries shown in the plaint and when they did not establish the cause of action and as they did not show any cause of action against the defendant No.2 and since the PW.1 himself admitted in the cross that defendant No. 1 is no way concerned with the suit schedule property, as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief of perpetual injunction as they failed to establish their case.” 9. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff preferred appeal vide A.S.No.232 of 2013 and 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 18.09.2024, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 10. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:- “To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.1 was examined as PW1 and the attestor of the Ex.A8 as PW2 and one of the purchaser who purchased the plots from the defendant no.2 as PW3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A34. Though in the appendix of the evidence Ex.A1 to A31 were mentioned, but in the Judgment of the trial court Ex.A32 to A34 were discussed. Though in the appendix of the evidence Ex.A1 to A31 were mentioned, but in the Judgment of the trial court Ex.A32 to A34 were discussed. Mere non mentioning of the documents in the appendix of the evidence is not fatal to the case of the plaintiffs as Ex.A32 to A34 were discussed in the judgment.” 10.1. The first Appellate Court further observed as hereunder:- “Here in the case in hand, PW1 who is the plaintiff no.1 admitted in the cross examination that he did not file any documents to show his possession over the suit schedule property from the date of the purchase till the date of the filing of the suit and moreover in the cross examination he admitted that in Ex.A3 to A7 it is mentioned that it is acquired property by virtue of ancestral property. As per the case of the plaintiffs Smt. Uma Bai purchased the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A8. But as per Ex.A3 to A7 Smt. Uma Bai acquired the suit schedule property from her ancestors. There are material discrepancies with regard to the prima facie title and interference and contradiction in the evidence of the PW1. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie title, possession and interference of the defendant nos.1 and 2 over the suit schedule property and so that the ratio laid under the above case law is not applicable to this case. …… The plaintiffs have to establish the prima facie title over the suit schedule property, but the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A8 and A34, the plaintiffs failed to prove the prima facie title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Though the trial court discussed about the title of the plaintiffs donor i.e. Smt. Uma Bai elaborately, but that discussion has no much weight with regard to the holding of the possession over the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs” 11. Heard Sri M.Qureshi, representing Mrs. SalehaBefum, learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the entire material available on record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court committed error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal on improper appreciation of the material placed on record. Heard Sri M.Qureshi, representing Mrs. SalehaBefum, learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the entire material available on record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court committed error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal on improper appreciation of the material placed on record. Learned Senior Counsel further contended thatthough Ex.A32 to Ex.A34 were marked, the same were not mentioned in the Appendix of the judgment passed by the trial Court and therefore, judgment of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court are liable to be set aside. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that sale deed dated 21.06.1979 was executed more than 32 years back,therefore, the same ought to have been considered, however, both the Courts committed error by not relying upon the said document. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that both the Courtshave recorded perverse findings and failed to acknowledge the possession of plaintiff, based on the evidence adduced and the material placed on record and prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate Court for proper adjudication, since apparently the Appendix of the judgment, does not refer to Ex.A32 to Ex.A34. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Division Benchs of this Court in (1) R. Parijatham and another Vs. M. Kameshwari and others , [ 2017 (5) ALD 348 (DB)] , (2) Pothuraju Mysaiah Vs. Pothuraju Sudarshan and others , [ 2023(5) ALD 163 (TS)] and (3) K.Nagashree and another Vs. K. Mahesh Kumar, 2023 (5) ALD 801 (TS) (DB) . 13. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Courtconcurrently held that plaintiffs are claiming title on the basis of sale deed document dated 21.06.1979, which is admittedly un-registered. Therefore, Gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiff does not confer/transfer any title to the plaintiff. Both the Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff failed to prove possession over the schedule property and the trial Court observed that PW.1 during the cross-examination admitted that defendant No.1 is no way concerned with the schedule property and therefore, plaintiff isnot entitled for relief of perpetual injunction as they failed to establish the case. Both the Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff failed to prove possession over the schedule property and the trial Court observed that PW.1 during the cross-examination admitted that defendant No.1 is no way concerned with the schedule property and therefore, plaintiff isnot entitled for relief of perpetual injunction as they failed to establish the case. So far as non-mentioning of the Ex.A32 to Ex.A34 in Appendix of trial Court judgment is concerned, it is relevant to refer to the observation of the first appellate court, wherein it was clearly recorded thatEx.A32 to Ex.A34 were marked during the cross- examination of DW.1, which was reflected in the Appendix of evidence of the plaintiff and were referred discussed and considered by the trial Court in its judgment. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that Ex.A32 to Ex.A34, though marked on behalf of the plaintiff were not referred and considered by the trial Court is factually incorrect.In the above Judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, the facts of the case and documents placed on record were neither examined nor considered. In the present case, documents confronted during the cross of DW.1 on behalf of the plaintiff were examined as Ex.A32 to Ex.A34 and were referred, discussed and considered by the trial Court. Therefore, judgments mentioned by the learned Senior Counsel are not applicable in the present case. 14. In considered view of this Court, the learned counsel for appellant 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. 15. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon’bleApex 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. 16. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon’bleApex 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.