The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant; Sri Vijay B. paropkari Counsel for the Respondents No.g to 11: M/s. Bethi Venkah swarlu The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.247 of 2025 JUDGMENT: The prescnt Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by thc Judgment and Dccree, dated 04.04.2025, passed by the Principal District Judge, Nagarkumool District at Nagarkumool, in AS.No.l 5 of 2020, u'hcreunder and whereby the Judgment and decree dated 12.12.2019 in OS.No.l76 of 2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, was conllrmed

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the def-endants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the partics are ref'erred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shell, which ted to filing ol the present Second Appeal are that plaintiff filed suit in OS.No.l76 o12013 fbr partition and separate possession of Agricultural lands against the defendants. In the plaint, it is averred that one Boosi Parvathalu was the Pattedar of land to an extent of Ac.9.01 guntas in Survey No.6l; an extent of Ac.10.34 guntas in Survey no.62; an extent of Ac. I1.35 guntas in Suwey No.63, totaling to an extent of 32 acres, situated at Achampet Village and M anddl, \ Mahabubnagar District (herein after referred to as the 'suit schedule property'); that the said Boosi Parvathalu died leaving behind him 2 LNA, J 5'.A.No.217 of 2025 his daughters Sakku Bai, Padmamma, Rajamani an(l I ii only sorl Booshi Raja Copat. who is tlre plaintilI hcrein, as his legal hei .r ; that afler clemise of Boosi Pan,athalu the suit schedule lands were bcir r cultivated bv the plaintiff and del-cndants through late Pokala Muthyalu; t rat on 25.08.2013. when the plaintifT \\'cnt to suit lands 1br cleaning his pc tion of undivided lands lor agricultural purpose, defendant No.I carne to :he suit lands and obstructed him lrorn cultivating the land stating that thr: suit lands belongs to his father ar.rd alier his dcath, he inherited thc ; it lands; that on 3 1.08.20 13, the plaintill' approached the 'lahsildar, ant, .rn verificarion he caule to knorv tirat rhc nar-ne ol'P.Muthyalu who is the I rther of del-endant No.l. w'as shorvn as Pattedar lrom the year 1980 inclr r ing I{oR; that the mattcr was referrcd to village elders for partition and st tarate posscssion, but dcl'endants 1 and 2 refused for the same; and rrat the father of delendant No. I who is thc elder brother-in-law of plair t tf and delendants 4 to I colluded u,ith revenue officials and got nru i ted the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue rccords without having ny right over the suit lands. Hence, the plaintiff hled suit for specific pa: tion and separate possesslon. 3 LNA. J 5.A.No.247 of 2025

4. The defendant Nos. I and 2 filed common written statement adrnitting the relationship between the parties as mentioned in the plaint, and contended that Boosi Parvathalu was the owner of the suit schedulo properlies; that the plaintill herein i.e. Boosi Ra.lagopal has got landed pr-opcrties i.e. Ac.3 I .30 guntas dry lands situated at Achan.rpet Villagc and Mandal (suit schedule property); that the plaintiff sold away the said suit propefty in favour of Pokala Muthyalu who is the fathcr of detbndant no.1 ar.rd 3 and delivered posscssion; that in thc year 19(r5, the said Pokala Mutliyalu got validated the alienation made by the plaintitl in his favour, and accordingly Forrn No.4 under Section 50-B ol' the A.P.(Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 was issued to him; that since then the name of Pokala Muthyalu is mutated in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor of the suit lands; that after thc dcath of Pokala Mutliyalu, defendant Nos. I and 2 became the owners and possessors of the suit property being the legal heirs. It is further avened that after the death ol Pokala Muthyalu in the year 2005, his legal heirs i.e. defendants I and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property; that plaintiff is out of possession of the suit schedule properties since more than four decades; and that the plaintiff has not included the other joint family I :r .lt S.A-Nc.217 of 2[ propeftics olBoosi Parvathalu as propertics in the prcst r t suit for pallition, as such, t1're suit is not maintainable

5. Basing orr thc pleadings olboth the parties, the 1t I owir.rg issues were framed by the trial Courl for trial " l.L|/h<'thar thc plaintiff i.s entitled to preliminor r decree for parlitiorr rtnd sepctrate posscs.siort o-f his l/4't' ;,are in the .s tt i t .s c h c d r t I c 1t r o p e r t i e s a s p r o.v ed .fo r?

2. 7'o v'hu t rclial'.)

6. During thc course of trial, on bchalf of the pkrrr til}, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examincd and []xs.A I to Ex.A I I were markecr. On behalf of the defendant, none \{,cre examined and no documents wct-t narked

7. The trial (loult. on due consideration of ora illld documentary evidence placerl on rccord, disrnissed thc suit vide Ju:3ment and Decree dated 12.12.2019

8. The tlial Courl while dismissing the suit L.rr de the fbilowing observations:- " 13. In the present case in hand, the documo t.s jiled b1t the plaintiff himself more particularly Exs.A-', A3 would invariably go to show that the suit prope 'ties were recortled in the name of plaintiff for the year 960-1961' . 5 LNA. J 5.A.No.247 of 2025 1967-1968 and thereaftet' the name of P.Muthyalu who is none other than father of defendant No.l is recorded as pdttedar and po.ssessor of suit properties as evidenced from Ers.A4 to Al I for the periodfrom 197 l-1972, 2002- 2003 to 2009-2010, respectively. The fact that the name oJ' P. Muthl'olu is recorded as pattedar and possessor o-f suit schedule properties as evidenced from Ex.A4, A6 to All sttbstatttiates the contention of defendant Nos.l and 2 that the plcintilJ- sotd the said properties in favour o.f Mtrthvalu and tts such his nante is reflecting in the rer,enlte records as prtttedar and possessor of the suit scheclule properties. The -fact that the plaintiff did not chctllutge the entries appearing in the name of P.Murh),alu in the reverute records since the year 197 l- 72 as evidenced front Ex.A4, would also make me to draw an adt,erse inference against the plaintiff, for the reason that no prr,tdent person would keep silent without making an1, efforts to t'erufy the entries in revenue records in respect of properties held by him and without taking any recourse for correction of wring entries in revenue records, for a period offour decades. " "14.No document is forthcoming from the plaintiff to show that the suit proPerty continued to be recorded in the name of his father Boosi Parvathalu till his death in order to entitle himself to a share in the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the ROR annexed to Ex.AI LNA,, 5.A.No.217 of 2025 y,ould sl::o:x) tlnt the tlame of P.Muthyalu i.s t ?corded as - pottcde' o.f-lhc .tLtit .schedule properttes and t1,., t nature o./' ott:ncr.ship i.: mcrttionad os t"adarath in coltt,t q No.l I tct l4 thcrcin v hiclt sult.r tan tiates the ca.sr: of th,: :!clittdant.s No.l ond 2 ond disprun,es the cloim and cu.s.r tl'plaintilf. Therefore, thc plainti.ff' is Jhilcd to prove th tt thc suit schedule properh, is the ance.stral propertt f plaintif/ and defendonts ... " The trial courl also obscrved rhat thc plaintiff did n r include the other joint f amily propcrties of Boosi Parvathalu in thc prcsr:r t surt lbr partition, he,cc the suit is bad lbr non-inclusion ol- all thc Pr, ,erti.:s, si,cc there cannot be a parlial partition.

9. Aggrieved by thc dis*rissal of the suit by the trial lrourt, the plaintiff preferred appeal in AS.No.l5 of' 2020 on the llle c 1 prirrcipal District Judge, Nagarkumool. ['he flrst Appellate court re-app -eci.ted the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal, vide Judgrnent rnd Decree dated

04.04.2025.In the impuened Judgment, the first Appclt te ('ourt made the fo llowi n g observation s : "..........it can be seen that the suit proper\ has been mutated in the nqme of the father of the defentant No.l by narne Muthyalu and the saied Muthva\ was in possession and cLtltivation of the suit lands ,r his own 7 LNA, J 5.A.No.247 of2025 right. Further, after his death the defendant No.l is admittedl.t, irt possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. Though it is pleaded that the defendant No.l is cultit'ating the stit lands jointly on behalf of himself and the othcr lcgal hcirs under crop share basis, nothing is cstablisherl to prot,e that defendattt No.l has been sharing the crop to all the lcgal heirs of Parvathalu. " " .....the plaintiff failed to establish that he is tabing any crop slrure from the defendant No.l and he is also failed to estoblish that the share of toher legal heirs from the sttit lontls ,l'as git'en to the legal heirs of Pan'athalu by Muthl,alu v,ho v'as admittedly in possession of the suit Land, since long time until his dealh. Further, PW'2 tleposetl in his et'idence lhut the defendant No- l is in possession of the suit schedule properties. Hence, from all the ahot,e obsert,ations, it is clear that none of the legal heirs are t.aking any crop share from the suit lands et,er since the death o.f Pan'athalu which is said to have taken place in the ltsov 1953 as admitted by PIV'1" ".....it is clear that the plaintiff had not included all the joint family properties in the partition suil. In Hindu Law alt the joint family properties of all co-sharers who hqve a right in the said property must be included. If there is atry exception for the same, it must be adequately established. When partition ts proved, it is presumed that it is a total partition both as to persons and property' I LNA, J 5.A.No.247 of 2025 Hence, a xit for partial partition of .lr t tt ./imily propcrlie.s is trot matntainable in the cve oJ'1t..,. On. this grr.tunrl trlone in viev, rt' the admilted.fact.\, l( present suit.for porlition is lioble to bc disni.s.sed. " l0 Aggrieved by the Judgment of thc First .Apitcl ttc Court, prcsent Second Appeal is prefered. I l. Ileard Sri VUay B.Paropkari, learned r ounsel lor the appella nt/plaintiff

12. l-eamed counsel for thc appcllant rvot.d subnlit that appellant/plaintiff tras discharged his initial burden that the suit properties arc joint farnily properties and the burden shilts on t r thc deferclants to pror.c that the suit lands are purchascd by thcrn, hourr er, defentlants did not adduce any evidence, therefbre, the trial court ougl,r to have dismissed the suit on this sole ground. He further subrnits that le assertio. of the appellant that the suit lands are self acquired lands r,f appcllant's father who died intestate, was not denied by the defendants a r I that they did not even enter witness box. Therefore the observations ma I : by trial court as well as First Appellate court to the effect that the appct ant/plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are anc(s.ral properties, is 9 LNA, J S.A.No.247 of 2025 eroneous. He further submits that the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court as well as appellatc court are contrary to the evidence placed on record as wc[[ as settled principles of law, therefbre, prayed to allow the appeal.

13. A perusal of record would disclose that both the Courts concurrently held that the suit filed by the plaintitTis bad lor non-inclusion olthe joint lamily properties of B.Parvathalu; and that there cantlot be any partial partition. Further, both thc Courts are concurrently held that the suit lands have been mutated iu the uame ol' lather of dcfendant No.l by name P.Muthyalu in the revenue records as Pattedar and Possessor which is evident from E,xs.A4 to Ali. Furlher, both the Courts held that the plaintiff has failed to prove tliat thc suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants. Both the Courts have also observed that the plaintiff is out ofpossession of the suit lands lor more than four decades.

14. Though learned counsel fol the appellant pointed out that the defendants did not even enter witness box and adduce any evidence in support oftheir contention that the appellant sold the suit lands to the father of defendant No.1 i.e. P.Muthyalu, the documents filed by the appellant i.e. Pahanis from the year 1954-1955 to 2009-2010 (Exs.Al to All) in fact t0 I,NA,., ,1.4.No.247 of 2025 suppofis thc contention oI defendants. Therefore, the : rntcntion put lbrth by the counsel Ibr the appellant is untenable I 5. In considerecl ol)inron of lhis Court, the appcllan r lailcd to raise any substantial qucstion o1' lar.r, to be decided by this (- I rrt in this Second Appeal. In flact, all the grounds raised in this appeal rrr : lactual in naturc and do not qualify as the substantial questions ol-lau. i I tenrs of Section 100 c.P.c I6. It is rvell settled principte by a catena ol'decis r ns ol'the Hon,ble Apcx ()ourt that in thc Sccond Appeal filed undeL St:rlun of-100 Cl.p.C., this Courl cannot intert-ere with thc tindings on lhcts arr vcd at b1. the first n ppellate (lourt, rvhich are based on proper apprcciar i rn ol' the oral ar.rd docurncntary evidence on record. 17 . Furt-her, in Gurdcv Kaur v. Kakit, the Apcx Cou: t helrl that the tligh Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the eviil rnce once again as a third trial Courl and the powerunder Section 100 C.: C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial quest ( n o1'law is raised and lalls lor consideration. t(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 1l LNA, J 5.A.No.247 of2025 I 8. Having considered the entire material available on reoord and the findings recorded by the first Appeltate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interl-crcncc u'ith the said findings, under Scction 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by thc appellants are factual in nature and no question of law, much lcss a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal

19. Hence, the Second Appcal lails and the sante is accordingly disrnissed at the stage of adrnission. No costs Pending miscellaneous applications, iiany, shall stand closed. SD/. K.SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 Kam/PSL The Princip al District Judge, Nagarkurnool The Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool One CC to Sri Vijay B. Paropkari' Adv ocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s. Bethi Venkateswarlu, A Two CD CoPies dvocate [OPUC] CIlIL HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 JUDGMENT SA.No.247 o12025 {HE S rA o t I I i JAN 2[20 2:. ,..r.r^.-^.,.....r 1, THE SECOND APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION ( (,\ \0\ ,.,\D 0

Counsel for the Appellant; Sri Vijay B. paropkari Counsel for the Respondents No.g to 11: M/s. Bethi Venkah swarlu The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.247 of 2025 JUDGMENT: The prescnt Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by thc Judgment and Dccree, dated 04.04.2025, passed by the Principal District Judge, Nagarkumool District at Nagarkumool, in AS.No.l 5 of 2020, u'hcreunder and whereby the Judgment and decree dated 12.12.2019 in OS.No.l76 of 2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, was conllrmed

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the def-endants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the partics are ref'erred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shell, which ted to filing ol the present Second Appeal are that plaintiff filed suit in OS.No.l76 o12013 fbr partition and separate possession of Agricultural lands against the defendants. In the plaint, it is averred that one Boosi Parvathalu was the Pattedar of land to an extent of Ac.9.01 guntas in Survey No.6l; an extent of Ac.10.34 guntas in Survey no.62; an extent of Ac. I1.35 guntas in Suwey No.63, totaling to an extent of 32 acres, situated at Achampet Village and M anddl, \ Mahabubnagar District (herein after referred to as the 'suit schedule property'); that the said Boosi Parvathalu died leaving behind him 2 LNA, J 5'.A.No.217 of 2025 his daughters Sakku Bai, Padmamma, Rajamani an(l I ii only sorl Booshi Raja Copat. who is tlre plaintilI hcrein, as his legal hei .r ; that afler clemise of Boosi Pan,athalu the suit schedule lands were bcir r cultivated bv the plaintiff and del-cndants through late Pokala Muthyalu; t rat on 25.08.2013. when the plaintifT \\'cnt to suit lands 1br cleaning his pc tion of undivided lands lor agricultural purpose, defendant No.I carne to :he suit lands and obstructed him lrorn cultivating the land stating that thr: suit lands belongs to his father ar.rd alier his dcath, he inherited thc ; it lands; that on 3 1.08.20 13, the plaintill' approached the 'lahsildar, ant, .rn verificarion he caule to knorv tirat rhc nar-ne ol'P.Muthyalu who is the I rther of del-endant No.l. w'as shorvn as Pattedar lrom the year 1980 inclr r ing I{oR; that the mattcr was referrcd to village elders for partition and st tarate posscssion, but dcl'endants 1 and 2 refused for the same; and rrat the father of delendant No. I who is thc elder brother-in-law of plair t tf and delendants 4 to I colluded u,ith revenue officials and got nru i ted the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue rccords without having ny right over the suit lands. Hence, the plaintiff hled suit for specific pa: tion and separate possesslon. 3 LNA. J 5.A.No.247 of 2025

4. The defendant Nos. I and 2 filed common written statement adrnitting the relationship between the parties as mentioned in the plaint, and contended that Boosi Parvathalu was the owner of the suit schedulo properlies; that the plaintill herein i.e. Boosi Ra.lagopal has got landed pr-opcrties i.e. Ac.3 I .30 guntas dry lands situated at Achan.rpet Villagc and Mandal (suit schedule property); that the plaintiff sold away the said suit propefty in favour of Pokala Muthyalu who is the fathcr of detbndant no.1 ar.rd 3 and delivered posscssion; that in thc year 19(r5, the said Pokala Mutliyalu got validated the alienation made by the plaintitl in his favour, and accordingly Forrn No.4 under Section 50-B ol' the A.P.(Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 was issued to him; that since then the name of Pokala Muthyalu is mutated in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor of the suit lands; that after thc dcath of Pokala Mutliyalu, defendant Nos. I and 2 became the owners and possessors of the suit property being the legal heirs. It is further avened that after the death ol Pokala Muthyalu in the year 2005, his legal heirs i.e. defendants I and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property; that plaintiff is out of possession of the suit schedule properties since more than four decades; and that the plaintiff has not included the other joint family I :r .lt S.A-Nc.217 of 2[ propeftics olBoosi Parvathalu as propertics in the prcst r t suit for pallition, as such, t1're suit is not maintainable

5. Basing orr thc pleadings olboth the parties, the 1t I owir.rg issues were framed by the trial Courl for trial " l.L|/h<'thar thc plaintiff i.s entitled to preliminor r decree for parlitiorr rtnd sepctrate posscs.siort o-f his l/4't' ;,are in the .s tt i t .s c h c d r t I c 1t r o p e r t i e s a s p r o.v ed .fo r?

2. 7'o v'hu t rclial'.)

6. During thc course of trial, on bchalf of the pkrrr til}, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examincd and []xs.A I to Ex.A I I were markecr. On behalf of the defendant, none \{,cre examined and no documents wct-t narked

7. The trial (loult. on due consideration of ora illld documentary evidence placerl on rccord, disrnissed thc suit vide Ju:3ment and Decree dated 12.12.2019

8. The tlial Courl while dismissing the suit L.rr de the fbilowing observations:- " 13. In the present case in hand, the documo t.s jiled b1t the plaintiff himself more particularly Exs.A-', A3 would invariably go to show that the suit prope 'ties were recortled in the name of plaintiff for the year 960-1961' . 5 LNA. J 5.A.No.247 of 2025 1967-1968 and thereaftet' the name of P.Muthyalu who is none other than father of defendant No.l is recorded as pdttedar and po.ssessor of suit properties as evidenced from Ers.A4 to Al I for the periodfrom 197 l-1972, 2002- 2003 to 2009-2010, respectively. The fact that the name oJ' P. Muthl'olu is recorded as pattedar and possessor o-f suit schedule properties as evidenced from Ex.A4, A6 to All sttbstatttiates the contention of defendant Nos.l and 2 that the plcintilJ- sotd the said properties in favour o.f Mtrthvalu and tts such his nante is reflecting in the rer,enlte records as prtttedar and possessor of the suit scheclule properties. The -fact that the plaintiff did not chctllutge the entries appearing in the name of P.Murh),alu in the reverute records since the year 197 l- 72 as evidenced front Ex.A4, would also make me to draw an adt,erse inference against the plaintiff, for the reason that no prr,tdent person would keep silent without making an1, efforts to t'erufy the entries in revenue records in respect of properties held by him and without taking any recourse for correction of wring entries in revenue records, for a period offour decades. " "14.No document is forthcoming from the plaintiff to show that the suit proPerty continued to be recorded in the name of his father Boosi Parvathalu till his death in order to entitle himself to a share in the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the ROR annexed to Ex.AI LNA,, 5.A.No.217 of 2025 y,ould sl::o:x) tlnt the tlame of P.Muthyalu i.s t ?corded as - pottcde' o.f-lhc .tLtit .schedule properttes and t1,., t nature o./' ott:ncr.ship i.: mcrttionad os t"adarath in coltt,t q No.l I tct l4 thcrcin v hiclt sult.r tan tiates the ca.sr: of th,: :!clittdant.s No.l ond 2 ond disprun,es the cloim and cu.s.r tl'plaintilf. Therefore, thc plainti.ff' is Jhilcd to prove th tt thc suit schedule properh, is the ance.stral propertt f plaintif/ and defendonts ... " The trial courl also obscrved rhat thc plaintiff did n r include the other joint f amily propcrties of Boosi Parvathalu in thc prcsr:r t surt lbr partition, he,cc the suit is bad lbr non-inclusion ol- all thc Pr, ,erti.:s, si,cc there cannot be a parlial partition.

9. Aggrieved by thc dis*rissal of the suit by the trial lrourt, the plaintiff preferred appeal in AS.No.l5 of' 2020 on the llle c 1 prirrcipal District Judge, Nagarkumool. ['he flrst Appellate court re-app -eci.ted the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal, vide Judgrnent rnd Decree dated

04.04.2025.In the impuened Judgment, the first Appclt te ('ourt made the fo llowi n g observation s : "..........it can be seen that the suit proper\ has been mutated in the nqme of the father of the defentant No.l by narne Muthyalu and the saied Muthva\ was in possession and cLtltivation of the suit lands ,r his own 7 LNA, J 5.A.No.247 of2025 right. Further, after his death the defendant No.l is admittedl.t, irt possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. Though it is pleaded that the defendant No.l is cultit'ating the stit lands jointly on behalf of himself and the othcr lcgal hcirs under crop share basis, nothing is cstablisherl to prot,e that defendattt No.l has been sharing the crop to all the lcgal heirs of Parvathalu. " " .....the plaintiff failed to establish that he is tabing any crop slrure from the defendant No.l and he is also failed to estoblish that the share of toher legal heirs from the sttit lontls ,l'as git'en to the legal heirs of Pan'athalu by Muthl,alu v,ho v'as admittedly in possession of the suit Land, since long time until his dealh. Further, PW'2 tleposetl in his et'idence lhut the defendant No- l is in possession of the suit schedule properties. Hence, from all the ahot,e obsert,ations, it is clear that none of the legal heirs are t.aking any crop share from the suit lands et,er since the death o.f Pan'athalu which is said to have taken place in the ltsov 1953 as admitted by PIV'1" ".....it is clear that the plaintiff had not included all the joint family properties in the partition suil. In Hindu Law alt the joint family properties of all co-sharers who hqve a right in the said property must be included. If there is atry exception for the same, it must be adequately established. When partition ts proved, it is presumed that it is a total partition both as to persons and property' I LNA, J 5.A.No.247 of 2025 Hence, a xit for partial partition of .lr t tt ./imily propcrlie.s is trot matntainable in the cve oJ'1t..,. On. this grr.tunrl trlone in viev, rt' the admilted.fact.\, l( present suit.for porlition is lioble to bc disni.s.sed. " l0 Aggrieved by the Judgment of thc First .Apitcl ttc Court, prcsent Second Appeal is prefered. I l. Ileard Sri VUay B.Paropkari, learned r ounsel lor the appella nt/plaintiff

12. l-eamed counsel for thc appcllant rvot.d subnlit that appellant/plaintiff tras discharged his initial burden that the suit properties arc joint farnily properties and the burden shilts on t r thc deferclants to pror.c that the suit lands are purchascd by thcrn, hourr er, defentlants did not adduce any evidence, therefbre, the trial court ougl,r to have dismissed the suit on this sole ground. He further subrnits that le assertio. of the appellant that the suit lands are self acquired lands r,f appcllant's father who died intestate, was not denied by the defendants a r I that they did not even enter witness box. Therefore the observations ma I : by trial court as well as First Appellate court to the effect that the appct ant/plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are anc(s.ral properties, is 9 LNA, J S.A.No.247 of 2025 eroneous. He further submits that the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court as well as appellatc court are contrary to the evidence placed on record as wc[[ as settled principles of law, therefbre, prayed to allow the appeal.

13. A perusal of record would disclose that both the Courts concurrently held that the suit filed by the plaintitTis bad lor non-inclusion olthe joint lamily properties of B.Parvathalu; and that there cantlot be any partial partition. Further, both thc Courts are concurrently held that the suit lands have been mutated iu the uame ol' lather of dcfendant No.l by name P.Muthyalu in the revenue records as Pattedar and Possessor which is evident from E,xs.A4 to Ali. Furlher, both the Courts held that the plaintiff has failed to prove tliat thc suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants. Both the Courts have also observed that the plaintiff is out ofpossession of the suit lands lor more than four decades.

14. Though learned counsel fol the appellant pointed out that the defendants did not even enter witness box and adduce any evidence in support oftheir contention that the appellant sold the suit lands to the father of defendant No.1 i.e. P.Muthyalu, the documents filed by the appellant i.e. Pahanis from the year 1954-1955 to 2009-2010 (Exs.Al to All) in fact t0 I,NA,., ,1.4.No.247 of 2025 suppofis thc contention oI defendants. Therefore, the : rntcntion put lbrth by the counsel Ibr the appellant is untenable I 5. In considerecl ol)inron of lhis Court, the appcllan r lailcd to raise any substantial qucstion o1' lar.r, to be decided by this (- I rrt in this Second Appeal. In flact, all the grounds raised in this appeal rrr : lactual in naturc and do not qualify as the substantial questions ol-lau. i I tenrs of Section 100 c.P.c I6. It is rvell settled principte by a catena ol'decis r ns ol'the Hon,ble Apcx ()ourt that in thc Sccond Appeal filed undeL St:rlun of-100 Cl.p.C., this Courl cannot intert-ere with thc tindings on lhcts arr vcd at b1. the first n ppellate (lourt, rvhich are based on proper apprcciar i rn ol' the oral ar.rd docurncntary evidence on record. 17 . Furt-her, in Gurdcv Kaur v. Kakit, the Apcx Cou: t helrl that the tligh Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the eviil rnce once again as a third trial Courl and the powerunder Section 100 C.: C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial quest ( n o1'law is raised and lalls lor consideration. t(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 1l LNA, J 5.A.No.247 of2025 I 8. Having considered the entire material available on reoord and the findings recorded by the first Appeltate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interl-crcncc u'ith the said findings, under Scction 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by thc appellants are factual in nature and no question of law, much lcss a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal

19. Hence, the Second Appcal lails and the sante is accordingly disrnissed at the stage of adrnission. No costs Pending miscellaneous applications, iiany, shall stand closed. SD/. K.SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 Kam/PSL The Princip al District Judge, Nagarkurnool The Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool One CC to Sri Vijay B. Paropkari' Adv ocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s. Bethi Venkateswarlu, A Two CD CoPies dvocate [OPUC] CIlIL HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 JUDGMENT SA.No.247 o12025 {HE S rA o t I I i JAN 2[20 2:. ,..r.r^.-^.,.....r 1, THE SECOND APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION ( (,\ \0\ ,.,\D 0