JUDGMENT: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY , J. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 14.06.2023, passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, in A.S.No.22 of 2020 whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 31.12.2019, passed by the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, in O.S.No.105 of 2013 was confirmed. 2. The appellants herein are plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2013, seeking perpetual injunction. In the plaint is averred that the plaintiffs are owners of Flat No.002, stilt ground floor, with undivided share of the land admeasuring 20 Sq.yds of 16.72 Sq.mts out of 532 Sq.yds along with built up area of 950 sft, house bearing No.3-1-69, known as Sree Baba Aashirwada Sadan, situated at Mandabad Basti, Lothkunta, Secunderabad Cantonment (hereinafter, referred to as ‘schedule A property’) and Flat No.001, stilt ground floor, with undivided share of the land admeasuring 22 Sq.yds of 18.39 Sq.mts out of 532 Sq.yds along with built up area of 1260 sft, house bearing No.3-19-69, known as Sree Baba Aashirwada Sadan, situated at Mandabad Basti, Lothkunta, Secunderabad Cantonment (hereinafter, referred to as ‘schedule B property’) having purchased the same in open auction conducted by the Bank of India, Vasavi Nagar Branch, Secunderabad, vide sale certificate, dated 10.10.2012 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002; that the builder constructed complex by duly obtaining permission from Secunderabad cantonment dated 30.07.1999, which included 20 flats in upper floor and two flats in ground floor; that on 24.10.2012, plaintiffs started cleaning and repairing the walls for whitewash defendant No.4 along with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 trespassed into plaintiffs property without any authority, stopped the work and threatened them that the property is meant for parking and the same will be demolished; that the plaintiff reported the matter to Trimulghery Police Station and the police did not take any action and again on 13.02.2013, defendants once again trespassed into the schedule property and forcefully locked and sealed the said property; that the plaintiffs approached Trimulghery Police Station once again and the police directed defendants to remove locks and seal; that the defendants are threatening the plaintiffs and interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule A & B properties. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement, (which was adopted by defendant Nos. 2 and 3), denying the allegation made in the plaint, that the plaintiffs approached the Court by suppressing the material facts and further averred that father of plaintiff No.1 acted as President of association and having knowledge about the illegal structures in the cellar portion and defendants also made efforts to remove the said structures during his tenure as a president of the association; that the plaintiffs have filed present suit with false allegation and at no point of time physical possession was delivered to the plaintiffs either by the bank or by the builder. Therefore, suit filed by the plaintiffs is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that defendant No.1/Association was formed for the welfare of the occupants of the complex and the same was registered. Defendant No.1 and other owners made representation to defendant No.4 that illegal construction is existing in the cellar portion which are against sanctioned plan and therefore, requested for action; that father of the plaintiff No.1 was removed as President of association for his illegal activities ,vide meeting dated 12.10.2012, that later defendant No.1, filed writ petition No.4952 of 2013, seeking direction to declare the inaction of the defendant No.4 in pursuance to the representation submitted by the association as illegal and arbitrary and the said writ petition was disposed of on 19.12.2013; that pursuant to the direction of the Court, defendant No.4, issued notice under Section 249 of Cantonment Act, 2006, and served the same to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and by suppressing the above facts, plaintiffs filed the present suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Defendant No.4 filed written statement, denying the allegation made in the plaint and contended that the suit is not maintainable and that there is specific bar under Section 250 of Cantonment Act, 2006, and that there is remedy to file appeal under Section 340 of Cantonment Act against the notice, therefore, suit is liable to be rejected; that the respondent No.4 issued notice on 17.12.2013 under Section 213 of Cantonment Act, to stop unauthorized constructions of shops in stilt floor which is meant for parking only, failing which, further action will be initiated; that the plaintiff submitted an explanation on 28.12.2012, however, they failed to file appeal; that defendant No.4 received some more complaints dated 11.01.2013 and 13.02.2013 from defendant No.1, requesting demolition of unauthorized construction and accordingly, notice dated 06.02.2013 was issued under Section 239 of Cantonment Act, 2006, to seal the premises within a period of three days from the date of issue of notice and the said notice was received by the plaintiffs on 25.02.2013; that the defendant No.4, issued another notice on 18.02.2013, under Section 248 (1) of the Cantonment Act, but, the plaintiffs failed to comply the said notice and the Association – defendant No.1 filed a writ petition. 6. 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 in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties? (2) Whether defendants interfered with plaintiffs possession? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction? (4) To what relief?” 6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PW.1 and PW.2, were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B11 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 31.12.2019. 8. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- “23. Converse to the above admission of PW2, PW1 who is co-owner admitted in his cross examination which reads as follows: "It is true that before purchasing the suit schedule property I verified all the revenue records including sanction plan. I did not file sanction permission issued by Defendant No.4 in respect of the suit schedule property. Converse to the above admission of PW2, PW1 who is co-owner admitted in his cross examination which reads as follows: "It is true that before purchasing the suit schedule property I verified all the revenue records including sanction plan. I did not file sanction permission issued by Defendant No.4 in respect of the suit schedule property. From the above contradictory statements made by PW1 & PW2 it is clear that their evidence is marred with inherit contradiction. However, according to contract of sale, it is bounden duty on the part of the purchaser to verify the title and all the credentials of the property which is under sale. It is a settled position of law that a person who is diligent and conscious about his rights will be protected by law and the person who is indolent and sleeping upon his own rights cannot be rescued by law. In the present case in hand the plaintiffs ought to have verified the sanction permission for construction of the structures in the suit schedule property prior to their purchase in the auction sale. As such, I am unable to agree with the contention of the plaintiffs that the propriety the existence of structures over the suit schedule property cannot be questioned by anyone, much less Defendant No.1 to 3 and plaintiffs have approached this court without bonafides. The statutory action initiated by Defendant No.4 against the alleged unauthorized construction in the stilt floor, (which is meant for parking of the vehicles) by issuing notices including the notices of demolition cannot be termed as unwarrated and highhanded. So much as, admittedly, no appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the statutory action initiated by Defendant No.4. Therefore, Defendant No.4 is undoubtedly is entitled to proceed further in accordance with the law. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the plaintiffs have approached this court with unclean hands. As such they are not entitled for the relief of injunction from the court of equity” 9. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2019, the plaintiff preferred appeal vide A.S.No.22 of 2020 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 14.06.2023, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2019, the plaintiff preferred appeal vide A.S.No.22 of 2020 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 14.06.2023, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 10. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:- “…it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs have suppressed the very issuance of notices by the Cantonment Board under Ex.B2, Ex.B3 and Ex.B5 in the plaint pleadings and also in their chief examination, which amounts to suppression of material facts and clearly probablizes that the plaintiffs had approached the Court with unclean hands which itself disentitles the plaintiffs for the equitable relief of injunction and on this ground also, the plaintiff's claim fails… … On perusal of Ex.B1/Sanction plan, it is clear that the stilt floor is meant for parking of vehicles only. The very existence of the flats No.1 and 2 i.e. plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule flats in the said stilt floor clearly goes to establish that they are illegal structures raised in the parking area which are purely meant for parking of vehicles, and is contrary to the sanctioned plan. In those circumstances, defendants No.1 to 3, who are representing the Apartment Complex as President, Secretary and Vice President has brought to the notice of the Defendant No.4/Cantonment Board for removal of the said illegal structures so as to safeguard the parking area and the same is evident from series of complaints made by the Defendants No.1 to 3 i.e. Ex.B6, Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 respectively.” 10.1. The First Appellate Court has further observed as hereunder:- “Thus the plaint schedule flat being constructed in the stilt floor i.e. cellar portion, which is meant for parking area are illegal constructions and the Cantonment Board has already initiated statutory action as per law, which cannot be averted by the relief of injunction when once the said notices issued by the Cantonment Board are not challenged and not declared as illegal by any competent Court of law.” 11. Heard Sri C.A.R. Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Thumu Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record. 12. Heard Sri C.A.R. Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Thumu Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the respondents. 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 grave error in dismissing the suit without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed in record, particularly the fact that the petitioners purchased suit flats is an auction conducted by the bank. Learned counsel further contended that petitioners are bonafide purchasers of suit flats in an auction conducted by the bank which implies that bank has sanctioned loan after due scrutiny of documents and approved plan. Therefore, action of respondent No.4, in locking and sealing the premises is illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel further contended that petitioners filed W.P.No.17379 of 2018 against the action of respondent No.4 and the same is pending before this Court and thus, prayed to allow the appeal. 13. A perusal of record would disclose that plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering the with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule A & B properties, which are locked and sealed by the respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the same, appellant filed writ petition and the said writ petition is pending for adjudication. Trial Court as well as appellate Court concurrently held that respondent No.4 has initiated statutory action against the alleged un-authorized construction by following due process and petitioners have not produced sanction plan before the Court. Both the Courts categorically held that plaintiffs have approached the Court with unclean hands. The first appellate Court, while dismissing the suit, specifically held that “he who seeks equity must rule equity”. It is relevant to note that Respondent No.4, issued notice to the plaintiffs for demolition of the suit flats, which means that petitioners are not in possession of the same and therefore, suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable, as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 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. 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.