IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1219 of 2009 Between: Mulaparti Mariayamma. … Petitioner And Ventapalli Sundaramma. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 1219 OF 2009 ORDER:- The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below filed this second appeal against the judgment of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram dated 25.11.2008 dismissing A.S.No.58 of 2006, while confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram dated 23.10.2006 dismissing O.S.No.264 of 2004 filed for perpetual injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac.0-10 cents of site. Both the courts concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to establish her possession over the suit schedule property. The trial court observed that though the plaintiff claimed that Ex.A1 – Registered Will, dated 03.06.1990 was executed by her mother-Sattemma in her favour, with respect to the plaint schedule property, she failed to remove the suspicious circumstances and due execution of the Will Ex.A1 in her favour and therefore, she is not entitled to injunction. Since there is no plea by the plaintiff that Adiyya executed any document in favour of his wife Sattemma, though there is a reference to such conveyance in the reply Ex.A4, the appellate court rightly observed that whether Sattemma had executed the Will or not, she can dispose off only her undivided 1/3rd share in the total extent of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, even if the Will is held to be true, the plaintiff will not get exclusive title over the plaint schedule property and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The concurrent findings of facts so arrived by the courts below on appreciation of evidence, do not give raise to any substantial question of law, to be decided in the second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 19th February 2010 lmv