The Hon'ble Supreme Courl of lndia in Hemavathi v. vs Hombegowdat held that High Courl can entertain a regular second appeal purely on

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Chandrasekhar Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Sri M. Murati Mohan The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.No.1 of 2024 in/and SECOND APPEAL No.328 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, leamed counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Murali Mohan, leamed counsel for respondent Nos. I and 2. Perused the entire record.

2. This Second Appeal is arising from concurent findings in judgment and decree dated 13.07.2022 in A.S.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Adilabad, ('First Appellate Court'), confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad ('trial Court'), wherein the suit for partitlon has been preliminarily decreed and the same is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the said concurrent findings, the present Second Appeal is filed with the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whethcr the judgment of both the Courts below is perverse? (2) Whethcr the partition suit filed by the respondent Nos.l and 2, rvithout impleading the wife of late Gali Pochanna is bad and liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party? (3) Whcther both the Courts below erred in deciding that the suit schedulc property was co-parcenary property of late Gali Bhojanna? I RY.J IA I 2024 inland sA 328 2024 (4) Whcthcr both the Courts below crred in dcci ing that the respondont No. I is entitle a sharc in the suit schedulcd l) .)perty?

3. l.A.No. I ol-2()14 is flled to condone dclay of 6({ da1,s in liling ol the present Second Appeal.

4. Respondent Nos. I and 2 herein filed suit for parrrion and separate possession u,ith respect to the property consisting of hot:: r bcaring No.7-7- l6113 situated at Bhuktapur, Adilabad, ('suit schedule )roperry,), which was originally owned and possessed by one Gali Bh<, rnna. Said Gali Bhojanna had two sons i.e., Gali Doddanna-appellan hcrein and Gali Pochanna (died). Gali Doddanna has one son and one r rughter i.e., Gali Santosh Kumar and Gali Sai Priya-respondent No.4 lr, rein. Said Gali Santobh Kumar died and is survived by his wife Gali I ulya-respondent No.2 and son Gali Harshith-respondent No.l herein. . ali Harshith and Gali Ramya filed suit against the father and sister of Gali rikanth, rvho are the appellant and respondent No.4 herein and also r 3ainst the legal representative of late Gali Pochanna i.e., Nandula padnlr r.espondent No.3 herein. In the said suit, respondent Nos. I and 2 examinr I p.W. I and got marked Exs.A- I to A-3 and there was no evidence on be r rlf of delendants and therefore, the said suit was decreed. The primary rer: rn for decreeing the suit is that as per Iix.A-3 the suit schedule property o gir-rally steurds in t 2 RY,J lA | _2024 inland sA 328 2024 the name of Gali Bhojanna and therefore, constitutes ancestral proPerty- The suit was decreed dividing the same into two shares in between appellant and Gali Pochanna-father of respondent No.3 and thereafter, respondent No.l, appellant and respondent No.4 herein were given 1/3'd share that fell into the share of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, first appeal is preferred and the same was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Courl of lndia in Hemavathi v. V. Hombegowdat held that High Courl can entertain a regular second appeal purely on a 'substantial' question of law not even a question of law or a question of fact. Further, as per the judgment of this Court in Syed Abdul Quddus v. K. Vijaya Laxmi2, the Apex Court in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakis held that the High Courl sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 CPC is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration I ' (zozs) s scc aaz 'z2024 SCc online TS 186 ' 1zooz1 r scc sao 3 I RY.J lA-_ I _2024 iiland sA, 328 2024

6. The only reason cited for pref'erring the presen. Sccond Appeal IS that thc wife o1'[,ate Gali Pochanna has not been implcr 1ed as parti' in the present suit. 'l'o the specific question posed by thi; ('otrrt as to how prejudice is caused lbr not impleading the wif'e o1's.r d Gali Pochanna, when the legal representative of Gali Pochanna, ! ho is sole legal representative, is arraigned as def-endant No.3 (rcspondt r t No.3) in the suit There is no satisfactory answer forthcoming from thc I arncd counsel for the appellant. l. It is asserled that there is error committed b1 t cth the (lourts in holding that suit schedule propefty was coparcenar. propefty of Gali Bhojanna. When there is a concurrent findings of lct about the suit schedule property bcing coparcenary property of Gali . rojanna and there is adequate representation of legal representatives o[ (:rli Pochanna, this Court under Section 100 of C.P.C. cannot deal with rl : said findings in Second Appeal as such there are no rnerits in the pres. rt Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. A \ I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed to condone delay of 661 days in filing the Second Appeal and the reasons stated are that the daugl t rr o1- the appellant was going to London and he was busy sending her. 1, r1, preparations to send a daughter to l,ondon may take 30 days or little r ore, but ccrtainly i I I 4 RY,J lA_1J024 inland sA 328 2024 not 660 days. Hence, the reason cited is unsustainable and does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay as per Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act, 1963.

9. In view of foregoing discussion, there are no merits to condone the delay or to entertain the Second Appeal.

10., In the result, the I.A.No. 1 of 2024 filed seeking to condone delay of 660 days is dismissed and the Second Appeal is also dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2022 in A.S.No.34 of 2020 on the fi le of the first appellate Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closedt j I i I SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Principal District Judge, Adilabad 2. The Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. 3. One CC to Sri S. Chandrasekhar, Advocate [OpUC] 4- One CC to Sri M. Murali Mohan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/PSL o HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012025 i COMMON JUDGMENT lA NO: 1OF 2024 IN/AND SA.No.328 of 2024 DISMISSING THE SA AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION st# iI rr8 II?6 * I *