HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No.128 of 2010 Dated: 11.3.2010 Between: 1. B. Satyanarayana and another ..Appellants and Barkat Maisamma .. Respondent. This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No.128 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal arises out of the decree & judgment, dated 15.10.2009 passed in A.S.No.276 of 2007 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 11.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.1677 of 2003 by the learned VIII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1677 of 2003 seeking declaration of her title and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property bearing municipal No.1-6-227/23, Ramnagar, Hyderabad, after evicting the defendants. The case of the plaintiff reads as follows: She is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she purchased an extent of 150 sq. yards of open land and constructed the house therein in or about 1952 and the plaintiff was an employee and she purchased the same with her savings and that her husband acquired properties bearing No.1-7-928, Ramnagar, Hyderabad and 1-6-227/23/A, Friends Colony, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. The plaintiff took voluntary retirement and recommended the 2nd defendant in her post out of love and affection. The defendants never cared to perform the marriages of the daughters of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant, who was staying in the house bearing No.1-7-928, Ramnagar, Hyderabad, highhandedly occupied the portion of the house bearing No.1-6-227/23. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that her husband used to collect rents from the tenants and after his death, she was collecting the rents and using the same for herself and unmarried daughter. While so, the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff and requested her to execute a gift deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property, for which, she refused and expressed her intention that she would give the property to her unmarried son and daughter. Consequently, both the defendants hatched up a plan and the 1st defendant shifted his residence to the suit schedule property. Inspite of the notice got issued by the plaintiff, the defendants neither vacated the premises nor gave any reply. But both the defendants got issued a notice dated 28.4.2003 claiming that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of late B. Rajaiah and they are entitled to have a share etc. and they filed a suit in O.S.No.1011 of 2003 seeking partition of the schedule property herein and two other properties. The defendants filed a common written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and contending that the suit schedule property was purchased by their father in the name of the plaintiff for the benefit of the joint family and the father of the plaintiff developed the property with the earnings of the defendants and constructed the suit schedule house. The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant shifted his family to a portion of the suit schedule property for want of sufficient accommodation in the earlier portion and he occupied the said portion as a coparcener. It is further contended that their father used to collect rents as Kartha of joint family with the consent and knowledge of all other family members. The plaintiff never asserted any right of ownership over the suit schedule property. It is admitted that they filed the suit in O.S.No.1011 of 2003 seeking partition of the schedule property and other properties. On a memo filed by the plaintiff in the present suit, the above suit was clubbed with O.S.No.1011 of 2003 and common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.1011 of 2003. Before the Court below, on behalf of the defendants in O.S.No.1677 of 2003, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the plaintiff in the present suit, D.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. Exs.X1 to X4 were marked through D.W.1. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court below decreed the suit declaring the title of the plaintiff B. Mysamma as the owner of the schedule property in the present suit and directing the defendants to vacate the schedule property. Hence, the defendants carried the matter in appeal. On re-appreciation of the evidence and considering the rival contentions, the lower appellate Court concurred with the reasoning and the findings arrived at by the Court below and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The scope for interference with concurrent findings of the fact while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C. is very limited. The material available on record establishes the case of the plaintiff that the schedule property is her self- acquired property. The findings of both the Courts below, which are in consonance with the evidence on record, are on sound reasoning and they are in proper perspective. Apart from that, the grounds raised in the appeal, do not constitute any substantial question of law. In view of this and in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I see no merits in this second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari Date: 11th March, 2010. Nn HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI Second Appeal No.128 of 2010 11.3.2010