Judgment : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 19-01-2011 in A.S.No.75 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 20-9-2005 in O.S.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty. 2. The 1 st appellant herein is the deceased sole defendant, appellants 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of deceased 1 st appellant/defendant and the respondents are plaintiffs 1 to 4 in O.S.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty. 3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, with a prayer for the relief of declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his followers from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and consequential injunction without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, legal representatives of the unsuccessful deceased sole defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, dismissed the first appeal with costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.1 of 1999, is as follows: It is pleaded that the 1 st plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property with specific boundaries from the deceased sole defendant through a registered sale deed dated 12-6-1962 and the defendant had retained some land on the south and east of the said property purchased by the plaintiffs. The 1 st plaintiff had been in actual possession of Ac.0-13½ cents though as per sale deed he purchased Ac.0-11 cents and that the plaintiffs perfected their title over the suit property by adverse possession. The 1 st plaintiff had been in actual possession of Ac.0-13½ cents though as per sale deed he purchased Ac.0-11 cents and that the plaintiffs perfected their title over the suit property by adverse possession. The defendant was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he was trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for declaration and for consequential injunction. 7. The sole defendant filed written statement and additional written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows: It is contended that the deceased 1 st plaintiff purchased only Ac.0-11 cents through registered sale deed from him and the land shown as ABCD in the plan filed by him is part and parcel of the suit survey number. A part of the land shown as ABG is also retained by him on the north and he sold away Ac.0-11 cents in favour of the plaintiff. The said Ac.0-11 cents is shown as BCDG in the plan filed by him. The boundaries have been given in the sale deed dated 12-6-1962 under which the plaintiff purchased the property with an idea of identifying the property purchased by him. The plaintiff raised foundation up to the ground level on the west of the land. The encroachment made into ABG by means of digging pits with a width of three feet by the plaintiff. The defendant raised objection as to the said encroachment. The disputed site of Ac.0-02½ cents property originally in possession of watchman of the cooperative society. The said watchman raised garden in his backyard. Later, it was measured and the defendant entered into possession of Ac.0-02½ cents and that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the entire extent of the suit property ? and (2) Whether the sale deed dated 12-6-1962 executed by the defendant is only to an extent of Ac.0-11 cents including Ac.0-03 cents sold by the plaintiff to a third party ? and (2) Whether the sale deed dated 12-6-1962 executed by the defendant is only to an extent of Ac.0-11 cents including Ac.0-03 cents sold by the plaintiff to a third party ? The following additional issue was also framed: (1) Whether the plaintiff perfected his title by adverse possession to the schedule property ? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. Exs.C-1 to C-3 were also marked. 10. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, legal representatives of the unsuccessful deceased sole defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.75 of 2008 before the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction with respect of entire extent of the suit schedule property as prayed for ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their title by adverse possession over Ac.0-02½ cents of site which is more than the extent of site that was purchased by the first plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 12-6-1962 which is situated on the northern side of the suit schedule property? and (3) Whether there are any sufficient grounds to set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated 20-9-2005 passed in O.S.No.1/1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rayachoty ? 11. The learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the appellants/legal representatives of deceased sole defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the legal representatives of deceased sole defendant. Felt aggrieved of the same, the legal representatives of unsuccessful deceased sole defendant in O.S.No.1 of 1999 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. Felt aggrieved of the same, the legal representatives of unsuccessful deceased sole defendant in O.S.No.1 of 1999 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the second appeal, on 17-02-2011, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the courts below are correct and justified in shifting the burden of proof more so in a suit for declaration of right and title wherein the plaintiff has to prove and establish his right and title without there being any shadow of doubt ? (2) Whether the Courts below are correct and justified in considering evidence of P.W.1 though died without tender himself for cross-examination and such evidence will be treated as no evidence for any purpose ? and (3) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants/appellants herein by observing the plaintiffs have perfected their title by adverse possession without any material much less supporting evidence ? 13. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the appellants/legal representatives of deceased sole defendant and Sri T.V.S. Kumar and Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsels appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. 14. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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 the 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 the case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. 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. It is also relevant to say that if the judgments of both the Courts below are contrary to mandatory provisions of the law applicable to the case, then also interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is permissible. 16. The undisputed facts are that the property covered under Ex.A-1 was sold to the 1 st plaintiff by the 1 st appellant/defendant under a registered sale deed dated 12-6-1962. As seen from Ex.A-1, the 1 st appellant retained the property on east and south of the property covered under Ex.A-1 sale deed. 16. The undisputed facts are that the property covered under Ex.A-1 was sold to the 1 st plaintiff by the 1 st appellant/defendant under a registered sale deed dated 12-6-1962. As seen from Ex.A-1, the 1 st appellant retained the property on east and south of the property covered under Ex.A-1 sale deed. It shows that on east and south sides of Ex.A-1 property, the defendant retained some property but no property is retained by the appellant on north and west sides. It is the specific case of plaintiffs that on the date of purchase of the suit schedule property, the property is not yet measured. The same is well supported by D.W.2, who is Village Karanam and scribe of Ex.A-1 sale deed. 17. The plaintiffs in the suit are seeking the relief of declaration of title in the plaint schedule property. The law is well settled that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weaknesses, if any, of the case set up by the defendant would not be a ground to grant the relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. The onus to prove title to the plaint schedule property in question was on the plaintiff who approached the Court for seeking the relief of declaration of title in the plaint schedule property. It was incumbent on the part of the Court to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit property, the Court is also bound to enquire or investigate that question in first before going into other questions that may arise in a suit. 18. The specific case of plaintiffs is that the property under Ex.A-1 within the specified boundaries as mentioned in Ex.A-1 sale deed was alienated to the 1 st plaintiff by the 1 st defendant under a registered sale deed dated 12-6-1962 and the 1 st plaintiff has been in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from 1962 onwards. The 1 st plaintiff, in order to discharge his burden, was examined as P.W.1 before Advocate Commissioner. A specific date was fixed for recording evidence of the 1 st plaintiff, but P.W.1 was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for defendant before the trial Court. The 1 st plaintiff, in order to discharge his burden, was examined as P.W.1 before Advocate Commissioner. A specific date was fixed for recording evidence of the 1 st plaintiff, but P.W.1 was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for defendant before the trial Court. Though an opportunity had been given to the defendant to cross-examine P.W.1, he did not choose to cross-examine P.W.1. It is an undisputed fact by both the parties that after recording the evidence of P.W.1, the 1 st plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5. The 3 rd plaintiff was examined as P.W.2. He narrated the entire facts as stated by the 1 st plaintiff in his evidence. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 1962 onwards and their possession over the plaint schedule property is uninterrupted possession and known to one and all including the defendant. Though the defendant was examined as D.W.1, he pleaded ignorance about measurements of the property sold to the 1 st plaintiff. D.W.2 is Village Karanam and also scribe of Ex.A-1 sale deed. His evidence is crucial to decide subject matter of the dispute in between both parties to the suit. 19. As per the admissions of D.W.2, in his evidence in cross-examination at the time of drafting Ex.A-1 by him, the defendant did not inform him to note measurement of the site and on the date of drafting Ex.A-1, he was in charge of Village Munsif of Rayachoti Village and he was working as Village Karanam of Rayachoti since 1969 permanently. As per his evidence, the defendant shown the boundaries, after reading the boundaries in Ex.A-1, the defendant delivered possession to the 1 st plaintiff and on the same day, stones were also fixed on the boundaries after delivery of property to the 1 st plaintiff. He also further admits that as per his instance, stones were fixed on four sides of the suit property and that measurements were not mentioned in Ex.A-1 sale deed. 20. He also further admits that as per his instance, stones were fixed on four sides of the suit property and that measurements were not mentioned in Ex.A-1 sale deed. 20. The defendant deposed in his evidence in chief-examination itself that the 1 st plaintiff with an intend to grab his land to the north of the property covered under Ex.A-1 in the suit schedule Survey number, which was used by colony people as a pathway and watchman of S.N. Colony, later raised a flower garden in the back yard of the house situated under the overhead tank. The defendant has not taken any specific plea in the written statement that north of Ex.A-1 property was used by the colony people as a pathway and watchman of S.N. Colony raised a flower garden. It is settled law that in the absence of any pleading in the written statement, no amount of evidence can be looked into. 21. The evidence on record proves that the 1 st plaintiff purchased the property under a registered sale deed Ex.A-1 on 12-6-1962 and he had been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property within the boundaries specified in Ex.A-1, since 1962 onwards. It is also not the case of the defendant that on the northern side of the property of the plaintiffs, he was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-02½ cents which is a disputed property. As per his own testimony, north of the property covered under Ex.A-1 in the suit property was used as a pathway by colony people and watchman of S.N. Colony. As stated supra, no such plea was taken by the defendant in the written statement itself. It is undisputed by both sides that the property under Ex.A-1 within the specified boundaries in Ex.A-1 was sold away to the 1 st plaintiff under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed on 12-6-1962 and the 1 st plaintiff had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same since 1962 onwards without any objection either by the defendant or any other person within the knowledge of the entire public including the appellants. It is the admitted case of the defendant that he has not retained any property on northern side of the property covered under Ex.A-1. It is the admitted case of the defendant that he has not retained any property on northern side of the property covered under Ex.A-1. The said disputed extent of Ac.0-02½ cents is not in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant since the date of Ex.A-1, the same is not at all disputed by him. The property mentioned in Ex.A-1 within the specified boundaries as narrated in Ex.A-1 was sold to the plaintiff way back about 37 years ago, prior to the institution of the suit. From that date onwards, he is in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that when the defendant is claiming rights in the disputed property of Ac.0-02½ cents, for the first time in the year 1999, in view of escalation of prices at the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs approached the Court in the year 1999 for seeking the relief of declaration of title. The defendant admitted in his evidence in cross- examination itself that he sold the said property to the 1 st plaintiff under Ex.A-1, by that time he sold the property to the plaintiff, it is not valuable and now it is a valuable property. The own admission of defendant in his evidence shows that the disputed property is a valuable property. 22. The law is well settled that if there is any dispute with regard to survey number and extent, boundaries will prevail over the suit survey number and extent. As narrated supra, it is not disputed by both sides that under Ex.A-1 within the specified boundaries mentioned in registered sale deed under Ex.A-1 was sold away to the 1 st plaintiff under a registered sale deed Ex.A-1 on 12-6-1962 and from 1962 onwards, he has been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment over the schedule property to the knowledge of one and all including the appellants. It is not at all the case of the defendant that subsequent to execution of Ex.A-1 sale deed, he is in possession and enjoyment over the disputed property of Ac.0-02½ cents. It is also not at all the case of the defendant that he retained property on northern side of the plaint schedule property and that the boundaries on four sides as mentioned in Ex.A-1 registered sale deed are not at correct. It is also not at all the case of the defendant that he retained property on northern side of the plaint schedule property and that the boundaries on four sides as mentioned in Ex.A-1 registered sale deed are not at correct. By giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge granted the relief of declaration of title and also perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned first appellate Judge confirmed the findings arrived by the trial Court. 23. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must confine to the substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interference of concurrent findings of both the Courts below, where the Courts below have exercised the discretion individually. Further, the existence of substantial questions of law is sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction. This Court cannot substantiate its own opinion unless the findings of both the Courts below are manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, I am of the considered view that both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding that the plaintiffs in the suit are entitled to the relief of declaration of title and also the relief of permanent injunction. There is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived by both the learned trial Judge and the learned first appellate Judge. 24. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed confirming the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal.