JUDGMENT : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. The Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 11.02.2025, passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in A.S.No.334 of 2015, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 06.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.1563 of 2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, was confirmed. 2. Heard Sri M.Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kuturu Ravinder Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Perused the record. 3. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts as narrated in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.4.15 guntas in Survey No.236 and Ac.2.31 guntas in Sy.No.237, total admeasuring Ac.7.06 guntas situated at Gowrelli village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’), which originally stood in the name of Jakka Sayanna and after his death in the year 1999, his daughter Jakka Yadamma succeeded to the said property being sole legal heir and her name has also been mutated in revenue records and Pattedar Pass Books were also issued in her favour. It is further averred that plaintiffs purchased suit schedule property from Jakka Yadamma under Registered Sale Deed No.18779 of 2006, dated 30.11.2006 and 6400 of 2008, dated 30.06.2008 and their names were also entered in the Revenue Records pursuant to proceedings dated 14.02.2007 and 28.08.2008 and Pattedar Pass Books, title deeds were also issued to the plaintiffs. It is further averred that the defendants without any right or title damaged existing fencing on 08.08.2009 and have removed existing stones on 10.08.2009 and the plaintiffs resisted the said attempts and lodged Police complaint, however, Police advised them to approach Civil Court, hence, the suit is filed against the defendants seeking the relief of perpetual injunction. 5. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte and defendant Nos.3, 4 and 7 filed separate written statements and defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.4. 6. Defendant No.3 has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also denied that the plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit schedule property. 6. Defendant No.3 has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also denied that the plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit schedule property. It is further averred that during his life time, Jakka Sayanna sold out the suit schedule property. Out of which, defendant No.3 purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.236 under registered sale deed document bearing No.2410 of 1997, dated 04.03.1997 and is in possession of the property; Jakka Yadamma never succeeded to the estate of Jakka Sayanna, however, after his death, by misrepresenting the facts, she obtained succession from MRO. After knowing the same, defendant No.3 has filed an appeal before the RDO East Division and vide order, dated 15.03.2008, said proceedings were set aside by the RDO and therefore, plaintiffs have no title or possession over the suit schedule property. 7. Defendant No.4 filed written statement and stated that she has purchased land admeasuring Ac.4.15 guntas in Survey No.236 from Jakka Sayanna. Thereafter, she sold the same in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6; that defendant No.4 and her father and brothers purchased an extent of Ac.10.25 guntas in Survey No.235 and further defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 clubbed their land and obtained common layout for total 13.28 guntas of land. Therefore, the plaintiffs do not have any right or title in respect of suit schedule property. Written statement filed by the defendant No.4 was adopted by defendant Nos.5 and 6. 8. Defendant No.7 filed written statement contending that he is concerned with land in Survey No.237 admeasuring Ac.2.31 guntas, which was originally stood in the name of Jakka Sayanna and denied that his sole legal heir Jakka Yadamma succeeded to the property after the death of Jakka Sayanna; that defendant No.7 leased property to M/s. Engineers Syndicate Pvt.Ltd., who established crushing unit in the suit schedule property, therefore, plaintiffs are not owners of said property and they never purchased land from Jakka Yadamma, as she never succeeded to the said land. Defendant No.7 has filed W.P.No.9359 of 2008 before this Court seeking direction to District Collector and MRO, Hayathnagar, to mutate her name in the revenue records and the same was disposed of as prayed for and as the said judgment was not challenged by Jakka Yadamma, her family members and plaintiffs, it has attained finality. 9. Defendant No.7 has filed W.P.No.9359 of 2008 before this Court seeking direction to District Collector and MRO, Hayathnagar, to mutate her name in the revenue records and the same was disposed of as prayed for and as the said judgment was not challenged by Jakka Yadamma, her family members and plaintiffs, it has attained finality. 9. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of granting perpetual injunction? 3. To what relief?” 10. During the trial, the plaintiffs have got examined PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-37. On behalf of the defendants, DW-1 to DW-5 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-97 were marked. 11. Trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim vide judgment and decree, dated 06.07.2015. In its judgment, the trial Court made the following observations:- “17. The case of the plaintiff's are that the since J.Saiyanna was bed ridden from 1991-99 till his death the question of execution of sale deeds in favour of the defendant's does not arise. Hence the case of the plaintiff's are that all the sale deeds of the defendant's are created only to grab the properties of Saiyanna. As the plaintiff's filed this suit for granting perpetual injunction burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff's are having valid, right title possession over the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff's has got knowledge about the writ petitions filed by the 7 th defendant and the plaintiff has got knowledge about the setting aside the succession proceedings issued by MRO by RDO and the plaintiff has got knowledge that the registered sale deeds were already in existence, in respect of plaint A & B schedule properties. Having knowledge about all these proceedings the plaintiff has not filed any suit for declaration declaring that the plaintiff's title over the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff's has not taken any steps to cancel the sale deeds of the defendant's. In such circumstances it is clear that in view of cancellation of MRO proceedings the succession issued in favour of Yadamma and mutation which was issued in the name of Yadamma as well as the plaintiff's has not valid. 19. Admittedly as on date of filing of the suit, as per pahanies the land was lay outed in to plots and plots was sold away by the defendant in Sy.No. 236 7 th defendants already let out the property to engineering syndicate. Hence the failed to prove that he dug a bore well and he is doing agricultural operations in the schedule property more over. In the entire cross examination by the plaintiff to the defendant's DW-5 ie 7th defendant' that the pattdar pass books title deeds and entries in the revenue records were created with the help of Sirajuddin the MRO who was transferred from that place. The defendants filed a document stating that as on date of making entires in the revenue records as per orders in Writ petition, Sirajuddin was, working in the office, more over the plaintiff's counsel argued that the sale deeds of the 3rd defendant as well as 7th defendant all are created documents which was brought in to existence in collusion with one Satyanarayana. 21. As seen from the CC of the sale deeds and original sale agreement and sale deeds filed by the defendant's and 7 th defendant, it is clear that thumb impression of Jakka Saiyanna and he was identified by Jakka Sankaraiah and sale deed attested by Jakka Jagadeesh S/o J.Sankaraiah. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the husband of the Jakka Yadamma Shankaraiah may not have surname as J.Shankaraiah and his son who is the attestor of the sale deeds and sale agreements J.Jagadeesh S/o Shankraiah (Driver) may not related to the family of Jakka Saiyanna. The counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the defendant has to prove their sale deeds and sale agreements. Admittedly the suit is for granting permanent injunction but not declaration the title of the parties. The counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the defendant has to prove their sale deeds and sale agreements. Admittedly the suit is for granting permanent injunction but not declaration the title of the parties. It was already discussed that the plaintiff has not filed any suit questioning the sale deeds of the defendant's in that circumstances even as per the pahanies filed by the defendant's showing the names of the defendant's and nature of the land as a plots in such circumstances the plaintiff has to prove right title. possession of the plaintiff's over the plaint schedule property. The documents filed by the plaintiff will not helpful to the plaintiff's unless denova enquiry conducted by MRO as per EX. A37 orders title of the vendor of the plaintiff is still in dispute. Hence the plaintiff cannot derive any valid right title from the vendors. Hence the plaintiff's is not entitled for any relief of injunction. The plaintiff failed to prove the cause of action.” 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, dated 06.07.2015, the plaintiffs preferred appeal vide A.S.No.334 of 2015 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and the first appellate Court, on elaborate appreciation of the entire material and evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree, dated 11.02.2025, confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. In the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court made specific observations which are hereunder:- “32. Therefore, Jakka Yadamma and her husband and her mother and sons taking advantage of the revenue entries got succession proceedings in the name of Jakka Yadamma, there after sold the suit schedule property to plaintiff No.1 and 2. Though Pw.1 deposed that he leased out the suit schedule property to M/s. Engineers Syndicate India Pvt. Ltd, but to prove the same the plaintiffs not filed single document before this court. More over in the cross examination Pw.1 categorically admitted that he not filed any documentary evidence to show that he was receiving rents from his tenant and Pw.1 also not examined the persons of said M/s. Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., before the court. More over Pw.1 pleaded ignorance that in IA.1819/2009 M/s. Engineers Syndicate filed affidavit that they running stone crusher in schedule B property and paying rents to defendant No.7. More over Pw.1 pleaded ignorance that in IA.1819/2009 M/s. Engineers Syndicate filed affidavit that they running stone crusher in schedule B property and paying rents to defendant No.7. More over Pw.1 deposed that he cannot say the names of the defendants against whom he filed the suit and he can not say the number of defendants against who he filed the suit. It shows that the cause of action of alleged interference by the defendants proved false. In this case the defendants from the beginning they denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. But the plaintiffs not taken any steps to seek relief of declaration of title. More over Pw.1 contended that Jakka Sayanna was bed ridden due to paralysis. Since 1991 till his death in the year 1999 but to prove the same the plaintiff not examined any family member of the Jakka Sayanna. More over Jakka Yadaamma or other executants of the sale deeds of the plaintiff i.e., vendor of plaintiff not filed any suit and they not challenged the sale deeds of the defendants to show that Jakka Sayanna not executed the sale deeds in favour defendants, therefore, the sale deeds filed by defendants executed by Jakka Sayanna are binding on the family members of the Jakka Sayanna including Jakka Yadamma and plaintiffs. 35. More over Nemo dat quid non habet, (no one gives what he has not got) and Nemo plus juris tribuit quam ipse habet (No one can bestow or grant a greater right, or a better title than he has himself). 36. Therefore, when Jakka Sayanna already sold the suit schedule properties during his life time, and later his daughter got succession certificate and sold the suit schedule properties to Pw.1 and Pw.2 but by that time she along with her mother, sons and her husband i.e., who are executors of sale deed of plaintiff, have no right and title over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, they cannot convey title and possession to Pw 1 and Pw 2 because Jakka Sayanna already sold and delivered possession to the defendants No.3 to 7 Admittedly the mere entries in the revenue records cannot confer title.” 13. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have failed to consider the material placed on record and dismissed the suit on perverse findings. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have failed to consider the material placed on record and dismissed the suit on perverse findings. He further submitted that the contention of the respondent/defendants that they obtained common layout converting the suit schedule property into plots and sold the same was not proved with acceptable/admissible evidence and that said aspect as well as documents placed on record on behalf of the plaintiffs including pattedar passbooks and title deeds issued in their favour were not properly appreciated by the trial as well as first appellate Courts and thus, have come to erroneous conclusions. He finally contended that the impugned judgment is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and therefore, prayed to allow present appeal. 14. Perusal of the record discloses that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court concurrently held that Jakka Yadamma who is vendor of plaintiffs have never succeeded to the estate of Jakka Sayanna, who is the original owner of the suit schedule property, therefore, no title has been transferred to the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiffs/appellants failed to establish the title and possession of the suit schedule property and whereas, defendants could able to prove their ownership and possession over the suit schedule property and thus dismissed the suit. Both the Courts have further observed that plaintiffs have filed suit only for injunction and they did not challenge/question sale deeds executed in favour of defendants, therefore, documents filed by plaintiffs will not help them and thus dismissed the suit. 15. A perusal of the record further discloses that both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession in respect of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the perpetual injunction and accordingly, dismissed the suit as well as first appeal filed by the plaintiffs. 16. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. 16. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 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. 17. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings on facts arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 18. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , , [ (2007) 1 SCC 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 fell for consideration. 19. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellants are factual in nature and no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. 20. In view of the above submissions, this second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.