THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.818 OF 2011 Dated:15.09.2011 Between: Devarabhotla Venkata Venu Gopala Krishna .. Appellant And Devarabhotla Annapurna (died) and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.818 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.57 of 2003. He filed the instant appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009 in A.S.No.3 of 2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, directing partition of suit scheduled property into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to him who is the adopted son of Annapurna (the first respondent herein) who is now no more. Indeed, he sought for a decree of partition for dividing the suit schedule property into four shares and allotting three such shares to him on the ground that it is a self acquired property of D.Rama Rao and that he is the adopted son. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, in A.S.No.3 of 2007 confirmed the trial Court decree and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. There is no dispute that the appellant is the adopted son of D.Rama Rao and Annapurna. There is also no dispute that Rama Rao purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.B1, dated 11.08.1988. The dispute, however, is with regard to the question whether Rama Rao purchased the suit schedule property by selling away some of the properties under the partition list, dated 25.05.1952 or purchased it with his own earnings. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence of PW.1 (wife of plaintiff), DW.1 (first defendant) and the documents, recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the suit schedule property was purchased by his father Rama Rao out of the earnings of his joint family property. These findings were approved by the appellate Court. This Court heard the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the judgments of both the Courts below. The evidence available on record has been correctly appreciated by both the Courts below and conclusions were drawn with cogent and convincing reasons. It is well settled that the person alleging the property to be the joint family property has to discharge the burden. In the instant case, except making an allegation that the suit schedule property was purchased under Ex.B1 by investing funds which Rama Rao got under Ex.A3, the plaintiff did not even depose as a witness. His wife as General Power of Attorney holder has given evidence. It is well settled that the GPA holder may represent a plaintiff or a defendant, but cannot speak or depose the facts in the knowledge of the plaintiff or the defendant (T.Penchalaiah v Jaladanki Saroja[1]). The Second Appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 15.09.2011 KH [1] 2006 (6) ALD 560 : 2006 (6) ALT 411