HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.S.A.NOS.15 AND 16 OF 2001 DT.26.04.2010 Between: C.M.S.A.NO.15 OF 2001: Yedla Appalanaidu ……….Appellant Vs. Nistala Venkata Narasimha Bhukta and another …………….Respondents. C.M.S.A.NO.16 OF 2001: Yedla Asirinaidu ……...Appellant Vs. Nistala Venkata Narasimha Bhukta and another ………………….Respondents. JUDGMENT: Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri H.V.Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. C.M.S.A.No.15 of 2001 is filed against the judgment rendered by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, in A.S.No.9 of 2000, dated 31.01.2001 and C.M.S.A.No.16 of 2001 is filed against the judgment rendered by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, in A.S.No.10 of 2000, dated 31.01.2001. For the sake of convenience, the appellant will be referred to as claim petitioner, first respondent as decree holder and the second respondent as judgment debtor. After the attachment of the plaint ‘E’ schedule property, the claim petitioner filed a claim petition claiming attachment in respect of plaint ‘C’ schedule property, which exclusively fell to his share in the partition effected on 25.09.1993. The decree holder filed counter contending that the E.P. schedule property is the exclusive property of the judgment debtor and that the claim petition being a collusive one, the same is liable to be dismissed. The second respondent-judgment debtor remained ex parte. Considering the fact that the judgment debtor remained ex parte and the evidence of PW-1 shows that his brother Yedla Raminaidu got separated from his brothers in the year 1982 and thereafter, the claim petitioner and brothers of Yedla Raminaidu lived jointly till 1993 and acquired some properties jointly and in order to grab the share of the claim petitioner, the judgment debtor-Yedla Asirinaidu got issued registered notice dated 13.05.1994 claiming exclusive rights in plaint B, C and D schedule properties and also considering the fact that there was exchange of notices between the judgment debtor and his brothers, which were marked as Exs.A5 to A-9 and under Ex.A5 the judgment debtor claimed the disputed property as his self acquired property, both the courts below gave concurrent findings, dis-believing the partition pleaded by the claim petitioner and held that the judgment debtor filed documentary evidence establishing that the schedule mentioned property is the self acquired property of him. The claim petitioner filed the appeals raising the following substantial questions of law: 1) When the joint family properties were partitioned on 29.05.1993 itself, whether the property covered under Ex.A-3 can be sold entirely when only ground floor portion fell to the share of the second respondent area; 2) When the partition list dated 25.09.1993 was admitted by the second respondent in his notice dated 13.5.1994, whether the property purchased under Ex.A-3 can be treated as self-acquired property of the second respondent especially when Ex.A-4 categorically established that even subsequent to the purchase of property covered by Ex.A-3, all the brothers jointly purchased the properties and when the partition was admitted by the second respondent by his notice dated 13.05.1994 much prior to the litigation whether first respondent has any right to dispute the same; 3) Whether the possession of Exs.B-1, B-2 and B-3 by the first respondent in any way disturb the case of the appellant, especially when the theory of the first respondent that Exs.B-1 to B-3 were delivered to the first respondent by the second respondent as a security is disbelieved by the courts below; 4) Whether the first respondent has any right to dispute the partition among the brothers when the second respondent admitted the said partition even prior to the date of filing of the suit and whether the courts below are justified in not drawing adverse inference against the respondents 1 and 2 basing on their conduct.” On 25.09.1993, the partition took place between the parties. In view of the substantial question of law as to the effect of the partition held on 25.09.1993 on the suit property, the learned Single Judge admitted the appeal on 16.03.2001. In fact, the learned Single Judge did not formulate any substantial question of law and it might be his view that the in the grounds of appeal filed by the claim petitioner, he raised the substantial question of law and taking into consideration the said grounds, admitted the C.M.S.A. After hearing both the learned counsel and on perusing the entire material placed on record, it is seen that the grounds urged relate disputed questions of fact, which became final and without any substantial question of law being framed for adjudication, the learned Single Judge appears to have admitted the C.M.S.A. However, merely because C.M.S.A. is admitted, the claim petitioner cannot contend that this court while disposing of the appeal is not supposed to examine as to whether really any substantial question of law involved for consideration in the C.M.S.A. I do not find any substantial question of law for consideration in these appeals and the appeals are not at all maintainable. There are no merits in the appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.26.04.2010 tjs