JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 03.06.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, in A.S.No.78 of 2022 whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 16.08.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, in O.S.No.66 of 2015 was confirmed. 2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants, 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.66 of 2015, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of her two open plots bearing Nos.22 and 23 lies in LP.No.331/81 in Sy.No.23/AA admeasuring 711.1 Sq.yards equivalent to 611.5 Sq.mts situated at Ramareddy Road, Kamareddy Town (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). Plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5615/2007 dated 12-10-2017, which was gifted by her husband Shaik Mahaboob Ali, since then plaintiff has been enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owner and with an intention to construct a residential building, she applied for permission to the defendant No.1 and permission was granted to construct first floor vide Proceedings No.G1/136/MCK/103/2007-08 dated 01-02-2008 and approved the sanctioned plan. Accordingly, the plaintiff has started construction of foundation as per the approved plan and the said house was partly completed within 3 years. Later, defendant No.1 has issued notice to the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff has constructed the house in deviation of the sanctioned plan by encroaching 40 feet width road. The defendant No.2 who is the Town Planning Officer frequently visited the schedule property and demanded illegal gratification. Since, the plaintiff has not fulfilled their demand, defendants threatened that they will dismantle the structures raised by the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit. 4. The defendant No.2 who is the Town Planning Officer frequently visited the schedule property and demanded illegal gratification. Since, the plaintiff has not fulfilled their demand, defendants threatened that they will dismantle the structures raised by the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit. 4. Defendant Nos.1 & 2 jointly filed their written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff is claiming ownership of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed bearing Document No.5615/2007 dated 12-10-2007 executed by her husband Shaik Mahaboob Ali, and the said Shaik Mahaboob Ali executed another gift settlement deed in favour Shaik Mubeen in respect of northern portion open plot No.23 in Sy.No.23/AA in LP.No.313/81 vide Doc.No.5617/2007 and rectified vide deed bearing No.4855/2015. On the same day, the husband of the plaintiff executed a registered gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5619/2007 in favour of Parveen, who is daughter of Shaik Mahaboob Ali and the said documents rectified vide rectification deed bearing Doc.No.4854/2015, in respect of the southern portion of the open plot No.23 lies in Sy.No.23/AA vide LP.No.331/1981. The plaintiff has made construction encroaching 40 feet width layout road. After execution of the registered gift deed in favour of the children of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not having any land in open plot No.23. Later, Smt. Shaik Mubeen and Smt. Parveen, applied for permission to the defendant No.1 for making construction in plot No.23 and the defendant No.1 has granted construction permission vide Proceeding No.G1/106/BA/227/2015 dated 26-06- 2015 and proceeding No.G1/103/BA/224/2015 dated 26-06-2015 respectively and they have constructed their respective houses in open plot No.23. It is further averred that the permission for construction is valid only for 3 years from the date of the orders i.e., 01.02.2008. The plaintiff commenced construction in the year 2015 after lapses of 3 years, therefore, the said construction is deemed to be unauthorized as the validity of the permission has lapsed by 31.01.2011. Therefore, the defendant No.1 issued notices dated 06-10-2015 and 09-10-2015. The first notice was served upon the plaintiff on 09-10-2015 and final notice was also issued to the plaintiff and since they refused to receive the same, the said notice was affixed at the construction premises of the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Therefore, the defendant No.1 issued notices dated 06-10-2015 and 09-10-2015. The first notice was served upon the plaintiff on 09-10-2015 and final notice was also issued to the plaintiff and since they refused to receive the same, the said notice was affixed at the construction premises of the plaintiff. Hence, 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 plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of this suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff possession is interfered by the defendants? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 4) To what relief ?” Additional Issue No.1: “Whether this Court is having pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the Suit ?” 6. During the course of the Trail, plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Town Planning Officer was examined as DW.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked. Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW.1 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 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, vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2022, dismissed the suit. 8. The trial Court while dismissing the suit categorically observed as hereunder:- “17. The plaintiff while deposing as PW1 she denied during the cross examination that her husband has gifted the property to her daughters in the part of the suit schedule property i.e., plot No.22 & 23. later, the plaintiff has admitted that her husband has gifted the property to her daughter in part of plot No.23. The above said admission of the plaintiff during the cross examination itself is made crystal clear that the husband of the plaintiff has alienated plot No.23 in favour of his two children through Ex.B5 and B7 gift deeds and the plaintiff is not in possession of the entire suit schedule property i.e., plot No.22 & 23. 19. As seen the evidence of PW2 it is clear that he has deposed what he want to depose, without having knowledge about the facts of this case. 19. As seen the evidence of PW2 it is clear that he has deposed what he want to depose, without having knowledge about the facts of this case. PW2 has mentioned the plot number, survey number and layout plan number and fact notices issued by the Municipal Council, Kamareddy and details of the permission in his chief examination, but coming to the cross examination, he has expressed complete ignorance about the above said facts. The plaintiff has examined PW2 to prove that the defendant has interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, but PW2 in his cross examination he has completely expressed ignorance about the facts of this case. 20. A perusal of the documentary evidence of the plaintiff and defendant and oral evidence of the plaintiff it is clear that the plaintiff has lost her possession in respect of the open plot no.23 way back in the year 2007, after execution of the Ex.B5 & Ex.B7 register gift deed by her husband, therefore, it can be hold that the plaintiff is in not possession of the entire suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, therefore, there is no question of interference by the defendants.” 9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs preferred appeal vide A.S.No.78 of 2022, 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 judgment dated 03.06.2024, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 10. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:- “25. DW1 is the Town Planning Supervisor working in Municipality of Kamareddy. In cross-examination DW1 asserted that after issuing notices to plaintiff encroachment of road portion contravening the master plan was demolished. He also deposed that the slab portion, which was constructed by encroaching the road, was demolished. DW1 could not state the date of demolition as he was not working in Municipality at that time. DW1 also deposed that that there was 100% deviation from the sanctioned plan on all sides. DW1 also deposed that the measurements of deviation were mentioned in notice issued to plaintiff. DW1 denied the suggestion that there was only 20% deviation but not 100%. DW1 also deposed that that there was 100% deviation from the sanctioned plan on all sides. DW1 also deposed that the measurements of deviation were mentioned in notice issued to plaintiff. DW1 denied the suggestion that there was only 20% deviation but not 100%. DW1 no doubt deposed in cross-examination that the Municipality would regularize the deviation if any application is made but in the very next sentence DW1 deposed that in this case plaintiff made construction by encroaching into road boundary against master plan which cannot be regularized. Though DW1 deposed that master plan was not filed later it was filed and marked as Ex.C2 through CW1 (In the Appendix of Evidence of Judgment under appeal Ex.C2 is mentioned as Warrant of Commissioner by over sight). DW1 also deposed that there is drainage and no road was found. Even according to PW1 and plaint schedule on southern side there is proposed road with drainage. Evidence of DW1, who is an independent employee in Municipal Council, Kamareddy, establishes that with 100% deviations by encroaching into road/drainage portion of southern side PW1 made construction and the said portion of encroachment of road was demolished. It is also evident froms the evidence of DW1 that the other portions of illegal construction remained as it is. 26. There is the evidence of CW1 also who is the Advocate Commissioner. Ex.C1 is the report of CW1, Ex.C2 is the Master Plan, Ex.C3 consists of notices issued to both parties and Ex.C4 is the layout plan and photographs with CD. CW1 deposed that he has made local inspection of suit house and mentioned in detail his observations in Ex.C1. Existence of Ramareddy Road with 50 feet and proposed 40 feet on southern side were mentioned in Ex.C1. CW1 deposed that plaintiff constructed 6 mulgies, 4 mulgies were existing as on the date of his visit and 2 mulgies were demolished by Municipal Authorities. CW1 was cross-examined at length by plaintiff. PW1 did not even dispute the appointment of CW1 as Advocate Commissioner. Though there is no existence of 40 feet road on southern side there is drainage, which is deposed by CW1. Even according to the plaint schedule, the southern boundary is proposed 40 feet road and covered into drainage. Though CW1 has not recorded the measurements of 2 mulgies it is not fatal to the case of defendants. Though there is no existence of 40 feet road on southern side there is drainage, which is deposed by CW1. Even according to the plaint schedule, the southern boundary is proposed 40 feet road and covered into drainage. Though CW1 has not recorded the measurements of 2 mulgies it is not fatal to the case of defendants. CW1 deposed about measurements of each mulgie in his cross-examination. Debris of demolished construction were also noted by CW1 in Ex.C1. Merely because CW1 had not taken the assistance of skilled person to take measurements of drainage his evidence cannot be discarded because he is an Advocate Commissioner. The map and photographs, forming part of Ex.C4, also reflected the encroachment made by plaintiff over proposed road/drainage on southern side of suit house. Evidence of CW1 is amply corroborated to the evidence of DW1 and the stand of defendants taken in their written statement. 27. When there is illegal construction or encroachment of public road or drainage it is the duty of defendants to take appropriate action, otherwise illegal constructions and encroachment of drainage/road would continue. When drainage portion is encroached there will be lot of difficulty during rainy season for free flow of water etc. in drainage resulting in lot of inconvenience to the public of Kamareddy Town at large. Therefore, defendants cannot be found fault for demolition of illegal encroachment and illegal construction made by plaintiff. When there is illegal construction by encroachment of drainage/road plaintiff cannot seek perpetual injunction by filing suit. Even when series of notices were issued by defendants to plaintiff as in Ex.A4/Exs.B2 to Ex.B4 she did not voluntarily remove the encroachments/illegal constructions and the Municipal Authorities had to demolish them.” 10.1. The First Appellate Court has further observed as hereunder:- “…long prior to the date of filing of suit 355.4 Square yards covered by Plot No.23 was already gifted by husband of plaintiff in favour of his children and the question of plaintiff being in possessor of said extent of plot, forming part of suit house, does not arise. By suppressing material facts about the gift settlement deeds executed by her husband in favour of her children plaintiff filed application before Municipal Council, Kamareddy and obtained construction permission under Ex.A2. Plaintiff did not commence construction within the stipulated time mentioned in Ex.A2 and after expiry of stipulated period she has commenced construction. By suppressing material facts about the gift settlement deeds executed by her husband in favour of her children plaintiff filed application before Municipal Council, Kamareddy and obtained construction permission under Ex.A2. Plaintiff did not commence construction within the stipulated time mentioned in Ex.A2 and after expiry of stipulated period she has commenced construction. Evidence on record also establishes that deviating from Ex.A3 approved plan plaintiff made illegal construction and went to the extent of encroaching the drainage/proposed road on the southern side of the suit house. In these circumstances, court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff is not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for...” 11. Heard Sri V. Venkata Mayur, 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 failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence placed on record in proper perspective, and erroneously dismissed the suit on perverse findings. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that both the Courts have come to an erroneous conclusion that plaintiff was not in possession of the schedule property, despite placing sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record. Learned counsel further contended that both the Courts have not properly considered the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the schedule property and that Court came to a conclusion that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff, if the suit is decided by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, though he did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit. Therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 13. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court as well as first Appellate Court concurrently held that appellant has obtained permission in the year 2008 and commenced construction in the year 2015, therefore, construction is unauthorized and the same was done after expiry of the permission period i.e., 3 years. Both the Courts concurrently held that husband of plaintiff already alienated entire extent of Plot No.23 to the children of plaintiff, way back in the year 2007 and thus, plaintiff was not in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Both the Courts concurrently held that husband of plaintiff already alienated entire extent of Plot No.23 to the children of plaintiff, way back in the year 2007 and thus, plaintiff was not in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Further, First Appellate Court categorically held that plaintiff made construction encroaching 40 feet wide road, therefore, respondent No.1 was justified in taking action against plaintiff for making construction in 100% deviation of sanctioned plan on all sides. 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’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. 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.