JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 09.11.2022 in A.S.No.73 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 15.09.2017 in O.S.No.141 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam (“Trial Court” for short). 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.141 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.141 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his kith and kin, servants, agents and henchmen from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 4. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.73 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The learned First Appellate Judge dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.141 of 2011, is as follows: The plaint schedule property is situated at Chennuru Village, Pedana Mandal. The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property on 04.01.2008 from one Maganti Arjuna Kumari for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,59,000/- and the said Maganti Arjuna Kumari received the sale consideration before the Sub Registrar and registered the same in favour of the plaintiff and delivered possession to him. Ever since, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute right, title, interest and has been cultivating the same in his exclusive possession and enjoyment to the knowledge of one and all from the date of registered sale deed. His vendor in turn bequeathed the schedule property by way of gift settlement deed executed by her mother Tadisetty Jala Sampurnamma on 24.11.2004. His vendor in turn bequeathed the schedule property by way of gift settlement deed executed by her mother Tadisetty Jala Sampurnamma on 24.11.2004. The defendant, who is no other than the brother of vendor of the plaintiff, trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property, but due to timely intervention of the neighbouring farmers, the plaintiff resisted him. Thereafter, on 02.02.2011, the plaintiff filed a P.L.C.No.16 of 2011 before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Machilipatnam, stating the above facts. The defendant received the notice in the said PLC and kept quite. On that the DLSA closed the said PLC directing the plaintiff to approach competent Civil Court. The defendant kept quiet for a period of one month by the attempts made by the plaintiff, but on 21.04.2011 at about 9-00 a.m., when the plaintiff was in the field, the defendant along with his person armed with deadly weapons came to the schedule property high handedly and illegally and tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denying the contents of plaint averments. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the plaint since there is no prima facie title, possession and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. There is no property on ground as described in the plaint schedule within the four boundaries with meats and bounds to identify the same and it is the duty of the plaintiff, who approached the Court, to prove that the plaint schedule property is identifiable property on ground and as per the description given in the plaint schedule. The fact remains that the mother of the defendant Tadisetti Jala Sampoornamma purchased an extent of Ac.1-53 cents of wet land situated in R.S.Nos.688/2 and 683 of Chennuru Village under a registered sale deed, dated 21.06.1975 from Kotte Venkata Reddy and Kotte Bhimasanakara Rao and on the same day the defendant also purchased some extent from the same vendors which is adjacent to the land purchased by his mother. Subsequent to those purchases, the land purchased by the mother of the defendant was merged with the land of the defendant and ever since, the lands of the defendant and his mother are in the possession and enjoyment of the same by the defendant by cultivating them uninterruptedly. The mother of the defendant is under care and custody of the defendant. Accordingly, the plaint schedule is not visible or identifiable property. The property held by the mother of the defendant in R.S.Nos.683 and 682/2 of Chennuru Village for an extent of Ac.1-53 cents is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant by cultivating them along with the lands of the defendant and there are no boundaries to the land of mother to identify the same as it was merged with the lands of the defendant. The documents filed along with the plaint are not genuine documents and the recitals in those documents are also not true and correct and there is no prima facie title, possession and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule land having duly purchased the same from the defendant’s sister Arjuna Kumari? (2) Whether the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land purchased by his mother Thadisetti Jala Sampurnamma? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 10. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.73 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner/respondent/plaintiff is entitled to adduce additional evidence as per prayers in I.A.No.417 of 2019 and I.A.No.65 of 2022? Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.73 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner/respondent/plaintiff is entitled to adduce additional evidence as per prayers in I.A.No.417 of 2019 and I.A.No.65 of 2022? (2) Whether the plaintiff before the trial Court has proved that he is in possession of the schedule property as on the date of suit? (3) Whether the defendant before the trial Court has proved that land of his mother is merged with his land and he is in possession of the schedule property form the year 1975 onwards? (4) Whether the plaintiff before the trial court is entitled to seek permanent injunction against the defendant? (5) Whether the findings given by the Trial Court are sustainable and there are any grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court? (6) To what relief? 11. The learned X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendant/appellant and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.141 of 2011 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. Heard Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and heard Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for the respondent. 13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial questions of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a questions of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi , (2007) 8 SCC 155 , the Apex Court held that: “It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial questions of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be raising substantial questions of law.” 14. The defendant having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , it is for him to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exist any substantial questions of law. 15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any substantial questions of law. The contention of the appellant is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 16. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that he purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 04.01.2008 for a valid consideration of Rs.1,59,000/- and his vendor delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on the date of registration itself. The plaintiff also relied on Ex.A.2 registration extract of gift settlement deed, dated 24.11.2004 said to have been executed in favour of his vendor by the mother of his vendor by name Tadisetti Jala Sampoornama. It is an undisputed by the defendant that Tadisetti Jala Sampoornamma was the original owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also relied on Ex.A.2 registration extract of gift settlement deed, dated 24.11.2004 said to have been executed in favour of his vendor by the mother of his vendor by name Tadisetti Jala Sampoornama. It is an undisputed by the defendant that Tadisetti Jala Sampoornamma was the original owner of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the said Tadisetti Jala Sampoornamma gifted the plaint schedule property to her daughter under a registered gift deed, dated 24.11.2004, in turn the daughter of Tadisetti Jala Sampoornamma sold away the same property under a registered sale deed, dated 04.01.2008 (Ex.A.1). The plaintiff to discharge his burden filed the registered sale deed and got marked as Ex.A.1 and also filed registration extract of gift settlement deed of her vendor document and the same is marked as Ex.A.2. The title of the vendor of the plaintiff is not yet disputed by the defendant. The defendant pleaded in the written statement itself that the mother of the defendant Tadisetti Jala Sampoornamma purchased Ac.1-53 cents of wet land situated in R.S.Nos.682/2 and 683 of Chennuru Village under a registered sale deed, dated 21.06.1975 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Kouthuvaram from one Kotte Venkata Reddy and Kotte Bhimasankara Rao and on the same day, the defendant purchased some extent from same vendors which is adjacent to the land purchased by his mother. The defendant further pleaded that subsequent to the aforesaid purchase of the property by his mother, merged with the land of the defendant and ever since the defendant and his mother are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 17. The case of the appellant is his mother purchased Ac.1-53 cents of land under a registered sale deed, dated 21.06.1975 and on the same day he also purchased some extent from same vendors adjacent to said land and both the lands are merged together. The chief affidavit of the defendant is filed as D.W.1 on 15.12.2015. In that chief affidavit, the age of the defendant is shown as 46 years and in I.A.No.568 of 2017 filed by the defendant in the first appeal in the year 2017, the age of the defendant is shown as 51 years, it seems that by the year 1975, the age of the defendant is less than 10 years. In that chief affidavit, the age of the defendant is shown as 46 years and in I.A.No.568 of 2017 filed by the defendant in the first appeal in the year 2017, the age of the defendant is shown as 51 years, it seems that by the year 1975, the age of the defendant is less than 10 years. Therefore, the purchase of the property by the defendant himself at the age of below 10 years with his own funds is quite absurd and also nothing but a false. As per the own admissions of the defendant, his mother executed a gift deed in favour of his second son in respect of Ac.0-53 cents out of Ac.1-53 cents, by that time his second son is a major. As per the own case of the defendant, his mother owned and possessed Ac.1-53 cents of land, therefore, it is quite clear that the mother of the defendant gifted Ac.0-53 cents of the property to the son of defendant and gifted Ac.1-00 cents of land to the own sister of the defendant and the sister of the defendant in turn alienated the same property to the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed. 18. The execution of Ex.A.2 gift deed by the mother of the defendant is simply denied by the defendant. The defendant in his evidence in cross examination itself admits that he does not know who filed the suit against him and the plaint schedule property does not stands in his name and it stands in the name of his mother and his mother died in the year 2013 and she died subsequent to the filing of the suit. As per the own admissions of the defendant the plaint schedule property does not stand in his name and it stands in the name of his mother. It is not at all the case of the defendant that the plaint schedule property is some of the part of the property which was gifted to his son by the mother of the defendant. The defendant also admitted in his evidence in cross examination itself that he is not filed any documentary proof to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The defendant also admitted in his evidence in cross examination itself that he is not filed any documentary proof to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As seen from Ex.A.2 gift deed said to have been executed by the mother of the defendant in favour the sister of the defendant, the defendant is also signed as one of the attestors at the time of execution of gift deed and also first identifying witness at the time of registration of the document. The defendant also categorically admitted in his evidence that the plaint schedule property belongs to his mother and she got every right to execute any document. It is not the case of the defendant that his mother gifted the plaint schedule property either to the defendant or to his son. Admittedly, no evidence is produced by the defendant to show that he purchased some of the land in the same survey numbers from the same vendors along with his mother in the year 1975 and land purchased by his mother was merged with the land of the defendant. Absolutely, no evidence is placed by the defendant to prove the said defence. 19. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed, he purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 2008 much prior to the filing of the suit. It is also relevant to say the defendant is also one of the attestors in Ex.A.2 gift deed said to have been executed by the mother of the defendant in favour of his sister i.e., vendor of plaintiff. The defendant pleaded ignorance about the gift settlement deed in the written statement and also in his evidence. In cross examination when elicited the defendant pleaded ignorance about Ex.A.2 gift deed said to have been executed by his mother in favour of his own sister. As stated supra, the defendant is signed as one of the attestors in the gift deed and also one of the identifying witnesses before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of Ex.A.2. It clearly goes to show that the defendant suppressed the material facts before the trial Court. 20. The title of the plaintiff is not in dispute. Ex.A.1 is also not in dispute by the defendant. It clearly goes to show that the defendant suppressed the material facts before the trial Court. 20. The title of the plaintiff is not in dispute. Ex.A.1 is also not in dispute by the defendant. As stated supra, the said sale deed Ex.A.1 is dated 04.01.2008, the suit is instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2011 and mother of the defendant died in the year 2013. For the reasons best known to the defendant, the defendant failed to examine his mother as one of the witnesses to prove that his mother did not execute the original of Ex.A.2 gift deed in favour of his sister. It is not the case of the defendant that the property under Ex.A.1 was alienated by his sister located at particular place but not within the boundaries specified in the plaint schedule property. As per the own case of the defendant, his mother purchased the property covered under Ex.A.1 but the defendant denied about the execution of Ex.A.2 gift settlement deed by his mother in favour of his sister on 24.11.2004. As stated supra, the defendant is acted as one of the attstors to the gift deed and also one of the identifying witnesses before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the gift deed. Therefore, it clearly reveals that the defendant suppressed truth and approached the trial court with unclean hands. Admittedly, the alleged gift deed under Ex.A.2 is not at challenged by the defendant till so far, therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff is having valid title under Ex.A.1 property. The plaintiff discharged his burden and proved his title to the property. 21. In order to discharge his burden, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. Ex.A.1 is the registered sale under which the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from his vendor and his vendor acquired the plaint schedule property under a register gift settlement deed from her mother under original of Ex.A.2 and the plaintiff also paid land revenue to the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.3. In order to prove the alleged possession of the defendant in the plaint schedule property, no scrap of paper has been filed by the defendant and no document is filed to show that he has acquired title in the plaint schedule property. In order to prove the alleged possession of the defendant in the plaint schedule property, no scrap of paper has been filed by the defendant and no document is filed to show that he has acquired title in the plaint schedule property. Though it was simply pleaded by the defendant that his mother gifted Ac.0-53 cents of land from out of Ac.1-53 cents to his second son, the same is not at all proved by the defendant by way of oral and documentary evidence. 22. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 23. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial questions of law arise for consideration and when no substantial questions of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , AIR 2006 SC 1975 . In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE . I.A.No.2 of 2024: 24. In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE . I.A.No.2 of 2024: 24. This application is filed by the petitioner/appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to receive the certified copies of documents viz., FIR in Cr.No.365 of 2022, dated 01.12.2022 and Section 161 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE statements of the witnesses as additional evidence on behalf of the petitioner: Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court: (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if: (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted. (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 25. The general principle is that the appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in the appeal, however, as an exception under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure enable the appellate Court to take evidence in exceptional circumstances only. The proviso under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the party to produce the additional evidence before the Appellate Court provided it has to come under the ambit of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE . 26. The proviso under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the party to produce the additional evidence before the Appellate Court provided it has to come under the ambit of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE . 26. The documents sought to be received as an additional evidence viz., FIR in crime No.365 of 2022 is relates to the subsequent to the disposal of first appeal. All the documents to receive as additional evidence is enclosed to the present application shows that those are relates to the year 2022 i.e., after disposal of the first appeal. The suit was instituted in the year 2011 and first appeal was preferred in the year 2017, the additional documents sought to be received as an additional evidence are FIR in Cr.No.365 of 2022, dated 01.12.2022 and Section 161 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE statements of the witnesses, those documents are subsequent to the disposal of the first appeal. It is relevant to say a suit for bear injunction is filed by the plaintiff in the year 2011. The said suit was disposed of on contest and after disposal of the said suit, the first appeal was preferred by the appellant in the year 2017 and the same has been dismissed in the year 2022 and after dismissal of the first appeal, the petitioner herein filed second appeal in the year 2024. In a suit for bear injunction the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit, but not subsequent to the institution of the suit proceedings. Moreover, to decide the subject matter of the suit in respect of bear injunction sought by the plaintiff relates to the year 2011, the documents of the year 2022 are nowhere relevant to the second appeal which was instituted in the year 2024. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to allow the application. 27. In the result, the I.A.No.2 of 2024 is dismissed. 28. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs in the second appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.