THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL No. 23 of 2011 Dated: 30-4-2011 Judgment: This appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 8-9-2010 of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District rejecting A.S.No. 127 of 2007 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 20-12-2006 of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No. 24 of 2004. The plaintiff is the grand daughter of the 1st and 4th defendants, while the 2nd defendant is the father and the 3rd defendant the paternal uncle of the plaintiff who is a minor represented by her mother. The suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule properties comprising agricultural lands i.e., items 1 to 12 in the ‘A’ schedule and a house property set out in the ‘B’ schedule. On behalf of the defendants, it was conceded in the suit that items 1, 4, 6 and 7 in the ‘A’ schedule property are joint family properties while it was contested that items 2,3,5 and 8 to 11 are the self-acquired properties of the 1st defendant grand father. The house property in ‘B’ schedule was also contested to be self-acquisition of the 1st defendant. The trial Court held, on the basis of the concession on behalf of the defendants, that items 1, 4, 6 and 7 of the ‘A’ schedule (agricultural lands) are joint family properties and on analysis of the evidence the house property in ‘B’ schedule (despite contest) is also joint family property and accordingly decreed the suit for partition while declning grant of partition in respect of items 2,3, 5 and 8 to 11. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed A.S.No. 127 of 2007. The appellate court concurred with the trial court with regard to the conclusion that items 2,3,5 and 8 to 11 of the ‘A’ schedule properties are not established to be joint family properties liable for partition and are the exclusive properties of the 1st defendant, though item No.2 of the ‘A’ schedule property was in the name of defendants 2 and 3, the sons of the 1st defendant-the father and paternal uncle of the plaintiff. Except the oral evidence of PW1 the mother and natural guardian of the minor plaintiff/appellant herein, that an income of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- was derived from the 2-00 acres (of the admitted joint family property) and constituted the nucleus for acquisition of the other schedule properties, an assertion which was contested by a suggestion that the income so derived was barely sufficient to maintain the 1st defendant’s family, there was no evidence marshalled on behalf of the plaintiff to establish the joint family character of items 2,3,5 and 8 to 11 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The Courts below therefore concurrently found that the plaintiff’s claim of the above items of ‘A’ schedule property also being joint family properties and not the exclusive property of the 1st defendant-grand father was not established. No question of law let alone a substantial question of law arise for consideration in this second appeal and the concurrent findings of the court below are not vitiated by any error of law or perverse appreciation of evidence. The second appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 30th April, 2011 GRR