1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 09.02.2023 in A.S.No.23 of 2018, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 21.06.2017 in O.S.No.272 of 2007, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.272 of 2007, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.272 of 2007, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, with a prayer for declaration of right and possession of plaint schedule property and to declare sale held in between defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.5 is null and void and consequential permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 6 and 7 by restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 5 from raising the constructions in the plaint schedule properties and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants 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 plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.272 of 2007, is as follows:

                  Originally, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and the father of the defendant No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.16 of 1944, on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsiff, Gooty, seeking partition and subsequently, a preliminary decree was passed and thereafter, final decree was also passed. The plaintiffs pleaded that in the said final decree, total 22 shares were divided among the petitioners and respondents in I.A.No.424 of 1962 in O.S.No.16 of 1944. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the father of the defendant No.5 herein was granted a relief of 1/22 share and separate possession in the suit schedule property and divisions 1 to 5 fallen to the share of the defendant No.5 herein and her late sister O.Jayamma and three others and the divisions 6 to 17 fallen to the share of O.Chakrapani and 18 to 22 divisions fallen to the share of plaintiff and defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the present suit, but the defendant No.5 and her sister late O.Jayamma and three others sold the shares of the plaintiffs to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein and executed a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1997. The plaintiffs pleaded that as there is no right and title over the same, the sale between defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.5 herein is null and void and no better title would be conveyed to the defendant Nos.1 to 4.

                  The plaintiffs further pleaded that defendant Nos.1 to 4 were in possession of the suit schedule property and are trying to construct some structures though they have no right to enter into the plaint schedule property. As such, the suit for declaration of right and title and for separate possession and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 5 from raising construction in the plaint schedule property is filed by the plaintiffs.

7. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the contents of plaint averments, and the same is adopted by the defendant Nos.2 to 4. They have pleaded about the negligence of the plaintiffs; the defendants are bona fide purchasers and the plaintiffs have acquired right by way of adverse possession. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

                  The averments in the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.6 and 7 are indirectly supporting the version of plaintiffs’ case. The defendant No.5 has not filed any written statement.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, framed the following issues for trial:

                  1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration for declaring the sale in between the defendants 1 to 4 and 5 as null and void and for declaration of the title of the plaintiff declaring them as owners along with defendants 6 and 7 and recovery of vacant possession over the suit schedule property?

                  2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as against the defendants 1 to 4? and

                  3) To what relief ?

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked.

10. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.23 of 2018, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, wherein, the following points came up for consideration:

                  1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of right and title over the suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction?

                  2) Whether the suit prayer prayed by the plaintiffs is maintainable or not? and

                  3) Whether there is necessity to interfere with the findings given by the lower Court or not?

11. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the plaintiffs/appellants and in favour of the defendants/respondents and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.272 of 2007 filed the present second appeal before this Court.

12. Heard Sri N.Chnadra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/ plaintiffs and Sri D.Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

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 appellants satisfies this Court that the substantial question of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a question 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 question 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 a substantial question of law.

14. The plaintiffs 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 exists any substantial question 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 appellants has shown any substantial question of law. The contention of the appellants 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. Originally, three (03) plaintiffs filed the suit before the trial Court and the appellant in the second appeal is the plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.272 of 2007.

                  Originally, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 filed A.S.No.23 of 2018, before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal, against which the Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.1 alone filed the second appeal. The relief sought by the plaintiffs before the trial Court in a suit is for a relief of declaration of right and possession over the plaint schedule property and the sale between the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the 5th defendant, her sister late O.Jayamma and three others is null and void.

17. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and one Oruganti Narayanaswamy, who is the father of the defendant No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.16 of 1944, on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Gooty, for partition of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the father of the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 6 is the defendant No.4 in the aforesaid suit, and the plaintiff No.3 and the defendant No.7 herein are the sons of one O.Ponnuswamy, who is the defendant No.6 in the said suit in O.S.No.16 of 1944. As stated supra, the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the main suit is to declare the right and title of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.6 and 7 and also the sale between the defendant Nos.1 to 4, 5th defendant, her sister late O.Jayamma and three others as null and void. Therefore it is for the plaintiffs to prove that the plaint schedule property herein was allotted to the share of the defendant Nos.6 and 7 under the partition decree in O.S.No.16 of 1944. As seen from the material available on record, the preliminary decree in O.S.No.16 of 1944 was passed on 31.01.1945, and the final decree was passed on 24.02.1949, and as per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the parties had filed a joint memo and a final decree was passed accordingly in O.S.No.16 of 1944.

18. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that both the Courts erred in law in not appreciating the evidence on record and both the Courts came to wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In the case at hand, Ex.A-2 final decree was passed on 24.02.1949 and as per the own admissions of the plaintiff No.1/P.W.1, he has not taken possession of property as per the final decree and except Ex.A-2 final decree, there is no further proof to show that the property was in their possession at any point of time. As seen from the plaint averments there is no whisper in the plaint itself when the plaintiffs came into possession of the plaint schedule property and when they were dispossessed.

19. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1/plaintiff No.1 admits in his evidence in cross-examination that he has not laid any fencing for the suit schedule land and there is no dispute between the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the 5th defendant with regard to the recitals of the sale deed and consideration and he has not taken possession of the property as per the final decree under Ex.A-2 and except Ex.A-2 final decree, there is no proof to show that the property was in their physical possession at any point of time. He further admits that, he has not cultivated the said land at any point of time himself, and his brothers are residing at Anantapur since 30 years. He further admits that the defendant Nos.6 and 7 are residing far away and he has contacted them at the time of filing the present suit and he further admits that the disputed land is not in possession and enjoyment of the defendants.

20. P.W.2/plaintiff No.3 admits in his evidence that himself, his brothers i.e. defendant Nos.6 and 7, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and also another brother O.Nettikallu, partitioned their joint family properties in the year 2009, under a registered partition deed and the suit schedule property is not shown as one of the properties in the said registered partition deed. He further admits that in the said partition deed it was mentioned that there were no other properties available for partition among them and the defendant No.5 sold the suit schedule property to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 on 25.06.1997 and in the sale deed, it was specifically recited that the property was delivered to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and in the said document, it was recited that the 5th defendant delivered possession the defendant Nos.1 to 4. He further admits that his father died in the year 1995, and they did not file any cist receipt before the Court about cultivation of the suit schedule property and there is no proof to show that his father and the father of P.W.1 were in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property prior to Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 and they did not file any execution petition in pursuance of the decree covered under Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. He further admits that the defendant No.5 sold away her entire property, which was in her possession within the Gooty limits.

21. The own admissions of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 negatives the case of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, it is the specific case of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 that they themselves and the defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the owners of the plaint schedule property. The defendant Nos.6 and 7 did not enter into the witness box. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the plaintiffs are disputing the title of the defendant No.5, but, both the Courts below have not dealt with the said issue and came to a wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 herein approached the civil Court seeking for declaration of title of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.6 and 7 in respect of the suit schedule property and also consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 5 from entering into the possession of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property. “In a nature of suit for declaration of title and possession, it is for the plaintiffs to prove their right and title over the plaint schedule property, but they are not supposed to depend upon the weaknesses in the case of the defendants.” In the case at hand, the plaintiffs failed to prove their title in the plaint schedule property.

22. In order to prove their title, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and the original registered sale deed dated 25.06.1997, was also filed and marked as Ex.B-1. It was also admitted by the plaintiffs that possession was delivered to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 by the defendant No.5 under the registered sale deed in the year 1997, the plaintiff No.3/P.W.2 admits in his evidence in cross-examination itself that there is no proof to show that his father and the father of the P.W.1 were in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, prior to Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 and there was a family partition among himself, his brothers i.e. defendant Nos.6 and 7 and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and another brother O.Nettikallu, who partitioned the joint family properties under a registered partition deed in the year 2009, and in the said partition deed, there is a specific recital that no other properties were available for partition among them and the suit schedule property is not included in the said partition deed. He further admits that the defendant No.5 sold the suit schedule property to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 on 25.06.1997 and the possession was also delivered under the said document.

23. The trial Court framed the relevant issues and discussed the evidence of the witnesses in detail and arrived at a right conclusion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. The First Appellate Court also by discussing the evidence of each witness and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

24. 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 defendants and against the plaintiffs do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 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.

25. 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 question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question 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. Kaki2 . 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.

26. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.