THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1355 of 2011 Dated:09.12.2011 Between: Peddireddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, And others. …Appellants. and Peddireddi Chandra Rao, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1355 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The plaintiﬀs in O.S.No.280 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, are the appellants in this Second Appeal ﬁled against the conﬁrming judgment and decree dated 19.08.2010 in A.S.No.200 of 2007 passed by the Court of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry. In this order, the parties are referred to by their status in the suit. The ﬁrst plaintiﬀ is the father of plaintiﬀ Nos.2 to 5. The ﬁrst defendant is the brother of the ﬁrst plaintiff. The suit was instituted for partition of plaint schedule property admeasuring 122 square yards with building bearing No.36-27-11 situated at Innespeta, Rajahmundry. The case of the plaintiﬀs is that the plaint schedule property was self-acquired property of the father of ﬁrst plaintiﬀ and the ﬁrst defendant and that after the death of father, both the brothers are entitled for equal shares. The defendants opposed the suit. They contended that both the brothers divided the suit schedule property in the presence of their mother and constructed separate portions in their respective sites admeasuring 61 square yards each. It was also contended that plaintiﬀs constructed only ground ﬂoor, whereas the ﬁrst defendant constructed three ﬂoors and residing there. The plaintiﬀs are harassing the defendants through Police and Courts for partition even though there was earlier partition. The ﬁrst plaintiﬀ examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8, whereas defendants examined three witnesses and marked twelve documents. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit observing that in the event of dividing the suit schedule property equities must be worked out and northern ground floor building should be allotted to P.W.1 and southern three ﬂoors building should be allotted to D.W.1, and in case if the site of D.W.1 is more than the site of P.W.1, then D.W.1 has to pay the value of the excess site to P.W.1, and vice versa. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiﬀs ﬁled A.S.No.200 of 2007 and the ﬁrst appellate Court conﬁrmed the lower Court judgment. Counsel for the appellants/plaintiﬀs would contend that having held that equities should be worked out in dividing the properties, both the Courts below erred in decreeing the suits allotting three ﬂoors building to D.W.1. This submission cannot be accepted. A perusal of the judgments below would show that it was the ﬁrst defendant who constructed the three ﬂoors and disbelieving his version that there was a partition during the lifetime of their mother, the Court below passed the decree working out equities. This relief granted by the Court below cannot be said to involve any question of law. The evidence was considered, and on proper appreciation of the same, the lower Court passed a decree as noticed hereinabove, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court. The Second Appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.12.2011 vs