JUDGMENT: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 26.09.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Jagtial, in A.S.No.17 of 2023 whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 13.03.2023, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, in O.S.No.176 of 2016 was confirmed. 2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondent herein is defendant, before 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 as narrated in the plaint are that plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.176 of 2016, seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of land to an extent 133.33 sq.yards in Sy.No.342 and 343, situated at Dharoor village of Jagtial Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’); that wife of plaintiff namely, Vemula @ Mamidala Susheela, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) is the owner and possessor of schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed document No.1589 of 2004; that due to ill health, the deceased died on 19.06.2016, leaving behind the plaintiff as her only legal heir; that defendant who is the mother of the deceased denied title of the plaintiff over the schedule property and interfered with his possession on 05.07.2016. Plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of defendants, however, defendant is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff frequently. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendant filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint, that defendant is the owner and possessor of the schedule property having acquired the same from her deceased daughter through registered will deed, dated 17.06.2016 and that in the year 2004 the deceased purchased schedule property under registered sale deed bearing document No.1589/2004, dated 03.09.2004 and her name was also mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings No.B/2476/2008, dated 05.12.2009 and after death of the deceased, the defendant is in peaceful possession and continuous enjoyment of the schedule property. 5. Defendant further averred that originally plaintiff is native of Laxmidevipalli village of Sarangapur mandal and used to work as auto driver and was residing at Krishnanagar, Jagtial; that marriage of the deceased was performed with one Ankam Satyanarayana, about 20 years back, however, due to some differences they obtained divorce, thereafter, the deceased did not marry any person and was living alone. It is further averred that the deceased during her life time worked as ANM (Outsource) in Primary Health Centre at Kathalapur village, where plaintiff developed close intimacy and friendship with the deceased and after the death of the deceased, plaintiff with mala fide intention to grab the schedule property alleged that the deceased was his wife, but in fact there is no marital relationship between plaintiff and the deceased; that plaintiff married one Sujatha and they were blessed with two daughters. It is further averred that the deceased during her life time, bequeathed her property in favour of the defendant by executing a will deed dated 17.06.2016, out of love and affection as the defendant rendered her services till her death and that after death of the deceased, defendant got right and title over the schedule property and that deceased got no legal heirs except defendant, therefore, question of succession of schedule property by plaintiff does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner and title holder in respect of suit schedule property? (2) Whether defendant has became absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of will deed, dt.17.06.2016 allegedly executed by Vemula Susheela as claimed by defendant? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of declaration of title in respect of suit schedule property? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of perpetual injunction against defendant? (5)) To what relief?” 7. During the course of the Trial, plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and PW2 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 to DW.3 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. 8. 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 13.03.2023. 9. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- “13. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 to DW.3 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. 8. 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 13.03.2023. 9. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- “13. From the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and answers elicited in the cross examination of PW.1, it can be held that the marriage of plaintiff with Susheela itself is void marriage as such plaintiff claiming the right over suit schedule property on the capacity that he is husband of deceased Susheela is not maintainable for the reason that marriage between them is void as per Sec.11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In view of the above reason plaintiff cannot claim ownership over suit schedule property by way of succession as their marriage is void as per owner of suit schedule property. … 16. In view of the discussion made in issueNo.1 and 2, the plaintiff herein miserably failed to prove marital relation between him and daughter of Defendant by name Susheela. Plaintiff in this case is claiming ownership by way of succession under section 16 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, claiming to be legal heir deceased Susheela and the plaintiff herein failed to prove existence of marriage between him and Susheela as such plaintiff is not entitled to declaration of title and further plaintiff also failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as such plaintiff is not entitled to relief of perpetual injunction.” 10. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.03.2023, the plaintiff preferred appeal vide A.S.No.17 of 2023 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 26.09.2024, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 11. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:- “…..Contention of the plaintiff is that though he filed photographs relating to his alleged marriage but trial Court did not show the same as exhibit in Appendix of evidence in the judgment. Thorough scrutiny of photographs made it clear that except positive photographs plaintiff failed to file the compact disc or negative corresponding to the photographs. As per the rule of procedure plaintiff has to file photographs along with compact disc or negatives. Thorough scrutiny of photographs made it clear that except positive photographs plaintiff failed to file the compact disc or negative corresponding to the photographs. As per the rule of procedure plaintiff has to file photographs along with compact disc or negatives. So, trial Court rightly rejected its admissibility. Heavy-burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that deceased Susheela obtained legal divorce from her first husband Satyanarayana Rao before her alleged marriage with the plaintiff. Legal divorce only dissolves the marriage of deceased Susheela with her first husband Satyanarayana Rao but not customary divorce. Caste elders are not empowered to dissolve marriage between spouses. No piece of evidence is placed on record with regard to dissolution of marriage of deceased with her first husband. Plaintiff also failed to place any evidence with regard to his legal divorce with his first wife. Admittedly, deceased Susheela and plaintiff were having living spouses at the time of their alleged second marriage. No evidence is adduced in respect of legal dissolution of their first marriages. So, the alleged marriage of deceased Susheela with the plaintiff is a void marriage in the eye of law and plaintiff cannot be considered as legally wedded husband of deceased Susheela and sole surviving legal heir of deceased Susheela. So, plaintiff cannot acquire right over the property of deceased Susheela automatically on her death." 12. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukeed, learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the entire material available on record. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record i.e., Ex.A1 to ExA9, erroneously dismissed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that though both the Courts disbelieved will deed dated 17.06.2016, purported to have been executed by the deceased in favour of her mother/defendant, but dismissed the suit by misreading and misinterpreting the documentary evidence placed on record. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that both the Courts failed to consider and appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed on behalf of the plaintiff and have come to perverse findings that plaintiff failed to substantiate his case. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that both the Courts failed to consider and appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed on behalf of the plaintiff and have come to perverse findings that plaintiff failed to substantiate his case. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 14. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court concurrently held that since the plaintiff failed to prove marital relationship between plaintiff and the deceased, he cannot claim ownership over the schedule property by way of succession. Both the Courts have also held that alleged marriage between the deceased and plaintiff is void marriage in the eye of law and therefore, plaintiff cannot be considered as legally wedded husband of the deceased and he cannot claim ownership over the schedule property. The First Appellate Court specifically observed that though plaintiff filed photographs relating to the alleged marriage, however, CDs and negatives of the same was not placed on record, therefore, the same cannot be considered and further observed that the plaintiff failed to place on record acceptable and admissible evidence in proof of marriage between plaintiff and the deceased. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 18. 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. 19. 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.