THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL No.121 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The second appeal is by defendants 5 and 9 in O.S.No.200 of 1996 and the appellants in A.S.No.36 of 2001. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 in A.S.No.36 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, dated 02.02.2001 allowing O.S.No.200 of 1996 and decreeing partition of the suit schedule properties was confirmed. The suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule property into 64 equal shares and for awarding 7/64th share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are the daughters of the first defendant. Defendants 5 and 6 are the sons; defendants 7 and 8 are stated to be purchasers from defendants 5 and 6 of a part of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 20.09.1996; and 9th defendant, who got himself impleaded into the suit, claimed to have purchased Ac.0.08 cents (out of the total extent of Ac.0.28 ½ cents of the suit schedule property) from the father and paternal uncle of the plaintiff and to have been in continuous possession of the said extent of land, after constructing a house therein. The trial Court found rightly that there was no evidence whatsoever in support of 9th defendant’s claim that he is the owner of the extent of Ac.0.08 cents claimed to have been purchased from the father and paternal uncle of the first respondent/plaintiff under an agreement of sale. The trial Court also found that the testimony of D.W.8, a Junior Assistant of Bapatla Municipality through whom Exs.X.1 to X.3 (entries in the property tax assessment registers of the year 1960-61; 1993-94 and 1998-99) were marked and the evidence of these documents does not even approximately constitute proof of acquisition of title by the 9th defendant of Acs.0.08 cents, by adverse possession. Accordingly the suit was decreed. The lower appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and held that there was no proof to support the 9th defendant’s claim of having purchased Ac.0.08 cents warranting exclusion of this extent from the suit schedule property. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated by a substantial error since the Court below failed to independently analyse the evidence on record i.e., oral testimony marshalled on behalf of the defendants including defendants 5, 6 and 9; of D.W.8, the Bapatla Municipal Employee and Exs.X.1 to X.3. It is also asserted on behalf of the appellants herein that the material evidence, namely, the testimony of D.Ws.3 to 8 read with Exs.X.1 to X.5 were not analysed and discussed in the appellate judgment and therefore, this error warrants admission of the second appeal for adjudication. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that 9th defendant in O.S.No.200 of 1996 – 2nd appellant herein did not claim at any point to being the owner of the suit schedule property along with the plaintiff and other defendants in the suit. He need have in fact not impleaded himself as a defendant. He invited himself to the lis and got himself impleaded in the year 2000 and sought exclusion of an extent of Ac.0.08 cents from the process of partition, asserting that he had purchased the property under an agreement of sale executed by the father of the plaintiff and his brother (paternal uncle of the plaintiff). The instrument, on the basis of which alienation in favour of 9th defendant of the extent of Ac.0.08 cents was made, has not seen the light of the day and was not marked in evidence. There is also no assertion as to whether it is a registered instrument. With regard to his ambiguous alternative claim of being in continuous possession of the property and the incoherent plea of adverse possession also there is no evidence to substantiate his plea of continuous and adverse possession for the statutory period in respect of any part of the total extent of Ac.0.08 cents claimed by 9th defendant. None of the oral testimonies on record including the testimony of D.W.8 nor Exs.X.1 to X.3 support this claim of adverse possession of 9th defendant in the manner required by law. In the above circumstances, the second appeal is required to be admitted only to consider whether the lower appellate Court did not proceed to draft the judgment with the technical exactitude required by law. Substantial errors of law required to be considered by this Court in a second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must have real consequences in terms of material benefits in a litigation. The second appeal cannot be a rubric for mere corrections of errors in judgment writing. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no substantial error either in the application of law, analysis of evidence or exercise of discretion by the Courts below in recording concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiff, warranting consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Date: 30.12.2011 va