THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No.1138 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 02.08.2010, passed in A.S.No.463 of 2009 by the learned District Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19.04.2005, passed in O.S.No.59 of 1998 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.59 of 1998 against the appellant-defendant No.2 and respondent Nos.3 to 7 herein, for partition of the suit schedule property, into three equal shares as per good and bad qualities by metes and bounds and put them in possession of two such shares, for future profits and for costs. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, decreed the suit by granting preliminary decree ordering division of the plait schedule property into 16 equal shares and plaintiffs 1 and 2 & defendants 1 and 2 together entitled to four such shares and plaintiffs 1 and 2 to get 1/16th share each, defendant No.1- 1/16th share, defendant No.2- 1/16th share and defendant Nos.4 to 6- 4/16th share each. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 carried the matter in appeal, being A.S.No.463 of 2009 before the District Judge, Guntur. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. 3 . A perusal of the judgment under appeal discloses that the schedule property is the self acquired property of the deceased Basavaiah and on his death Defendant Nos.4 to 6 being his daughters and defendant No.2 being his son are entitled to equal share in the schedule property since the grand children were not born by the date of his death and on the date of death, the partition is opened, and therefore, the trial Court rightly held that the property shall be divided into 16 shares, out of which, defendant Nos.4 to 6 are entitled to 4/16th share each and plaintiffs 1 and 2 & defendants 1 and 2 together are entitled to 1/16th share each being the legal heirs, consequent upon the death of Basavaiah, and same has been rightly confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 4. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of this appeal, this Court is of the view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal, warranting interference by this Court, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 6. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:12.11.2010 va