JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 28.03.2013 in A.S.No.37 of 2012, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 27.06.20112 in O.S.No.108 of 2007, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendla (“Trial Court” for short). 2. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondent herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.108 of 2007. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.108 of 2007 with a prayer for declaration of right, title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.37 of 2012 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants 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.108 of 2007, is as follows: The suit schedule property originally belongs to Rajula Gurappa, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff. Rajula Gurappa and two daughters viz., Arike Gurramma and Tamatam Ankamma. After death of Rajula Gurappa, all his properties including the suit schedule property devolved upon his daughters and the suit schedule property fell to the share of Tamatam Ankamma. In the year, 2003 the said Ankamma was in need of money for her medical expenses, she intended to sell the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is the son of Arike Gurramma, who is the elder sister of Tamatam Ankamma. He intended to purchase the property to prevent the same going outside of the family. He paid valid consideration of Rs.19,000/- to Ankamma on 28.02.2003 and obtained a registered sale deed. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same without any objection from anybody including the defendants. He intended to purchase the property to prevent the same going outside of the family. He paid valid consideration of Rs.19,000/- to Ankamma on 28.02.2003 and obtained a registered sale deed. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same without any objection from anybody including the defendants. The plaintiff was using the suit schedule property as Kallam. The defendants have no manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff reliably came to know that the defendants are trying to create fabricated documents to grab and knock away the suit schedule property to deprive the legitimate right of the plaintiff over the same and thereby to dispossess him to have a wrongful gain. On account of the clear out dispute regarding the title, the plaintiff has sought for declaration of his right, title and possession on the suit schedule property by way of amendment and requested for declaring the right, title and possession of the plaintiff and also grant permanent injunction. 7. The defendants filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the averments in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: Originally, the suit schedule property belongs to one Rajula Gurappa. Through his first wife, the said Gurappa has got two daughters viz., Gurramma and Ankamma. The first wife was Basamma and the second wife was Obulamma. The 2 nd wife had no issues and she died in the month of August, 2000. The plaintiff has suppressed the fact. The defendants denied that the entire property of late Gurappa devolved upon his two daughters including the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is the son of Guramma, the daughter of late Gurappa. Late Gurappa has given the suit schedule property and some other properties to his second wife Obulamma and the said Obulamma has given the property that was fallen to her share to her brother Linga Reddy Sidda Reddy, who is the 1 st defendant. The 1 st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is a kottam and not kallam as stated by the plaintiff. The said kottam has got D.No.4/34 and the defendants filed the voters list of 1999 and 2006 to prove the same. In the said voters list, the said kottam was in the name of Linga Reddy Sidda Reddy and his family. The said kottam has got D.No.4/34 and the defendants filed the voters list of 1999 and 2006 to prove the same. In the said voters list, the said kottam was in the name of Linga Reddy Sidda Reddy and his family. Sidda Reddy has demolished the kottam and sold the vacant site to the 2 nd defendant for a valid consideration of Rs.9,600/- under a registered sale deed, dated 15.07.2002. When the kottam site was sold in the year 2002 by Tamatam Ankamma. The second wife of Gurappa by name Obulamma and Ankamma have entered into a registered relinquishment deed, dated 19.03.1974 vide document No.489. In the said document, the suit site or kottam was not mentioned. The second daughter Gurramma died by that time. The second wife Obulamma has gifted the plaintiff some landed property under a registered gift deed, dated 22.05.1974 vide document No.948. In the said document, the eastern side boundary to the house is stated as belonging to Lingareddy Sidda Reddy. The plaintiff never enjoyed the suit kottam or area after it is removed. The plaintiff waited till the defendants began to construct the removed kottam. With litigant mind only, the plaintiff has filed the suit to have wrongful gain. The plaintiff has no right, interest or any claim over the suit schedule property. The suit is not maintainable for mere injunction without asking for declaration of title. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the grandfather of the plaintiff by name late Gurappa has given the suit schedule property and some other properties to his second wife by name Obulamma? (2) Whether the said Obulamma has given her share of property to her brother, who is the 1 st defendant in this case? (3) Whether the 1 st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? (4) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property? (6) To what relief? The trial Court after amendment of the plaint for the relief of declaration of title, the following additional issue was framed: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title to the suit schedule property? 9. (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property? (6) To what relief? The trial Court after amendment of the plaint for the relief of declaration of title, the following additional issue was framed: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title to the suit schedule property? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7 were marked. 10. The learned trial Judge after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.37 of 2012 before the First Appellate Court wherein the following points came up for consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and possession to the suit schedule property as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 11. The learned First Appellate Judge after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants in O.S.No.108 of 2007 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. On hearing both sides counsel at the time of admission of the appeal, on 02.09.2013, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court is in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC? (2) Whether the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court were justified in decreeing the suit of the respondent for declaration and injunction though prima facie , pending suit, the appellants were found in possession of the property? 13. Heard Sri A. Syam Sunder Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Karri Murali Krishan, learned counsel for the respondent. 14. 13. Heard Sri A. Syam Sunder Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Karri Murali Krishan, learned counsel for the respondent. 14. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence: In a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh , AIR 1993 SC 398 , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar , AIR 1999 SC 471 , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 15. In a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is normally not expected to re-appreciate the evidence on record. It shall not reverse the findings of both the Courts below except under few situations. If it is found that the material and relevant evidence are not considered by the First Appellate Court and if considered it would have lead to an opposite conclusion, is one instance where this Court is entitled to interfere. The other situation is when the findings of the facts were arrived by the First Appellate Court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence, which if it was omitted, an appropriate conclusion was possible. It is on such occasions also this Court can interfere. The other situation is when the findings of the facts were arrived by the First Appellate Court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence, which if it was omitted, an appropriate conclusion was possible. It is on such occasions also this Court can interfere. It is also relevant to say that if the judgment of both the Courts below are contrary to mandatory provisions of the law applicable to the case, then also an interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is permissible. 16. The undisputed facts of both the parties are originally the plaint schedule property belongs to Rajula Gurappa, who is the grandfather of plaintiff and the said Gurappa had two daughters viz. Gurramma and Ankamma. The plaintiff contended that after death of Gurappa, all the properties of Gurappa devolved upon his daughters and the plaint schedule property fell to the share of Tamatam Ankamma. The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed, dated 28.02.2003 from the said Ankamma by paying sale consideration of Rs.19,000/- to the said Ankamma and Ankamma delivered the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff is using the said property as kalam. 17. The appellants/defendants admitted in the written statement itself that originally the suit schedule property belongs to late Gurappa. Admittedly, no document is obtained from Gurappa by the defendants. It is the contention of the appellants that late Gurappa has given the suit schedule property to his second wife Obulamma and the said Obulamma had given the property that is falls to her share to her brother by name Lingareddy Siddireddy i.e., 1 st defendant in the suit. Admittedly, no scrap of paper is filed or no evidence is produced by the appellants to show that the 1 st defendant got the plaint schedule property from his sister Obulamma and no documentary evidence is filed by the 1 st defendant to prove his right and title in the plaint schedule property. The value of the plaint schedule property as per Ex.A.1 sale deed is Rs.19,000/-. As per Ex.B.1 sale deed alleged to have been executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant, the value of the property is Rs.9,600/-. As noticed supra, no document is obtained by the appellants either from Gurappa or Obulamma. The value of the plaint schedule property as per Ex.A.1 sale deed is Rs.19,000/-. As per Ex.B.1 sale deed alleged to have been executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant, the value of the property is Rs.9,600/-. As noticed supra, no document is obtained by the appellants either from Gurappa or Obulamma. The defendants admitted in their evidence in cross examination itself that there is no document in favour of 1 st defendant. 18. Ex.B.1 is sale deed alleged to have been executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant. In Ex.B.1 it is not at all mentioned that the 1 st defendant got the property either from Obulamma or from Rajula Gurappa. Furthermore, there is no document to show that Gurappa had given suit schedule property to his second wife Obulamma. The 1 st defendant admitted that Gurappa has not executed any document in favour of his sister Obulamma, likewise, Obulamma did not execute any document in favour of 1 st defendant. Except the bald plea taken by the defendants in the written statement that there was no evidence to show that Gurappa had given suit schedule property to Obulamma and Obulamma in turn given the suit schedule property to the 1 st defendant, therefore, the 1 st defendant is not having any valid title in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the 1 st defendant has no right to execute a sale deed under Ex.B.1 in favour of 2 nd defendant and that the 2 nd defendant did not get any valid title from 1 st defendant. No legal evidence is produced by the 1 st defendant to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court gave concurrent finding that either 1 st defendant or 2 nd defendant are not having any right or title in the suit schedule property. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the said finding given by both the Courts below that the 1 st defendant is not having any title in the suit schedule property. 19. It is the specific case of both the parties that originally the suit schedule property belongs to Rajula Gurappa. Gurramma and Ankamma were the daughters of Gurappa through his first wife. 19. It is the specific case of both the parties that originally the suit schedule property belongs to Rajula Gurappa. Gurramma and Ankamma were the daughters of Gurappa through his first wife. After death of first wife, Gurappa married Obulamma and after death of Gurappa his two daughters and second wife succeeded his properties. Obulamma died in the year 2000 and Ankamma died in the year 2010, the same is not at all disputed by both the parties. Therefore, Ankamma was last surviving legal heir of Gurappa. After death of Obulamma in the year 2000, Ankamma was only last surviving heir of Gurappa. The plaintiff obtained a registered sale deed from Ankamma by paying sale consideration of Rs.19,000/- and Ankamma also delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, as such, the plaintiff is having valid title in the suit schedule property, possession follows title, whereas the 1 st defendant is not having any title in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the 1 st defendant is not entitled to alienate the suit schedule property by executing Ex.B.1 sale deed in favour of 2 nd defendant. Since 1 st defendant is not having any right and title in the suit schedule property, the 2 nd defendant will not get any right and title under Ex.B.1 sale deed. 20. By giving cogent reasons, both the Courts below came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is having valid right and title in the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants by restraining them from ever interfering into the suit schedule property. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff proved the title and in the plaint schedule property, the defendants are not having title and possession over the plaint schedule property. In the case on hand, before the trial Court, oral and documentary evidence is produced by both the parties, both the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court carefully analyzed the evidence and on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Judge, confirmed the decree and judgment of the learned trial Judge. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived by both the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by both the Courts and that the present second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.