THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.762 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, against the respondents herein seeking partition of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and to allot 1/6th share in her favour in both ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, vide its judgment, dated 30-06-2003, decreed the suit insofar as the plaint ‘A’ schedule property is concerned and dismissed the suit insofar as the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.52 of 2004 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal, by its judgment and decree, dated 23-06-2008. Aggrieved by the same, this Second Appeal has been filed contending that the ‘B’ schedule property was also purchased with the ancestral funds and it is not the self acquired property of the 1st defendant and, therefore, the 1st defendant has no saleable rights to alienate the same in favour of defendants 6 and 7 and therefore, the finding of both the courts below that the ‘B’ schedule property is not the ancestral property is incorrect and untenable. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 8th defendant, who is the mother of the plaintiff, filed a written statement stating that execution of the sale deeds by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 6 and 7 in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property is false and incorrect as the 1st defendant was not in a position to execute registered sale deeds as he was in coma stage. Therefore, the execution of registered sale deeds by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 6 and 7 under Exs.A-5 and 6 is false and incorrect. I have perused the judgments of both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. Though the 8th defendant filed written statement marking the aforesaid allegations, she never choose to examine herself and no evidence was let in to prove the said averments made in her written statement. Insofar as the B schedule property is concerned, basing on the oral and documentary evidence it is evident that the ‘B’ schedule property was purchased by the 1st defendant and his brother Chenchaiah and the said Chenchaiah relinquished his share in favour of the 1st defendant vide Ex.B-2 relinquishment deed, dated 04-04- 1975. Thus, the trial court recorded a finding that the ‘B’ schedule property is the self acquired property of the 1st defendant and therefore, the 1st defendant has saleable rights and he sold the same in favour of defendants 6 and 7. Further, the lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15-10-2009 Prv