THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 492 of 2008. JUDGEMENT This second appeal is directed against the Judgement and Decree dt.19.11.2004 in A.S.No. 24 of 1998 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni confirming the Judgement and Decree dt. 28.2.1998 in O.S.No. 61 of 1997 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Yammiganur. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendant. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the defendant and they are the children of Gadde Laxmamma, who is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. She purchased the same under a registered sale deed dt. 9.11.1937. Admittedly she died intestate leaving behind her the plaintiffs and the defendant as her legal heirs. As per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, after the death of said Laxmamma, the parties to the suit have succeeded to her properties. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice to the defendant claiming that they are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and as there was no response from the defendant, they filed O.S.No. 61 of 1997 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganuru for partition of the suit schedule property. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. He did not object for partition of item No.2 of suit schedule property but objected for partition of item No.1 stating that he gave some gold ornaments to the plaintiffs at the time of their marriages and in lieu thereof, he kept item No.1 of schedule property and has been in possession of the same since then and he perfected his title to item No.1 by adverse possession. Before the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiffs Pws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs:A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant Dws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs:B.1 to B.8 were marked. Both the courts below on appreciation of the entire evidence with reference to the pleadings held that the plaintiffs are entitled for decree for partition and accordingly allowed the suit. In this second appeal, it has been contended by the defendant that the learned trial court as well as the 1st Appellate Court failed to consider the evidentiary value of Ex:B.1 Pattadar Passbook, Exs:B.2 to 6 the land revenue receipts and Ex:B.8 the Encumbrance Certificate and erroneously held that the defendant has no exclusive right over item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned 1st Appellate Court framed a single issue stating whether the defendant is entitled for setting aside the decree and judgment of the lower court as prayed, which is not in accordance with Order 41 Rule 30 C.P.C. and therefore prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the 1st Appellate Court with a direction to formulate appropriate points for consideration with reference to the issues involved in the matter and dispose of the same on merits afresh. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions in Vadde Anjappa vs. Vadde Hanumanthappa[1], Thummala Kanakamma vs. Vottikala Venkataswamy[2], Viyyapu Danayya vs. Peethala Appa Rao[3], and Karamalakunta Kadiramma vs. Karamalakunta Dasappa[4] for the proposition that the 1st Appellate Court has to frame points for determination of the issues in the matter, as per the Order 41 Rule 30 C.P.C. Both the Courts below upon considering the oral and documentary evidence have concurrently held that item No.1 of suit schedule property is a joint family property and the defendant failed to prove that he gave gold ornaments to the plaintiffs and thereafter his mother did not return the said property and therefore he kept item No.1 of schedule property and has been in possession of the same in his own right and that he perfected his title by adverse possession. As the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below are not either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record, this court is not supposed to interfere with such findings. Further, there is no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that appropriate points for consideration as mandated under Order 41 Rule 30 C.P.C. have not been framed and decided by the 1st Appellate Court, it can be said that the rule is not mandatory. Though the Appellate Court is required to formulate the points for determination which involve contentious issues between the parties, it is now well settled that even though such points have not been formulated by the Appellate Court, if all the points are dealt under a single issue by the Appellate Court in its Judgement, no prejudice will be caused to any of the parties and on that ground alone, the judgement cannot be set aside and remanded back to the 1st Appellate Court for mere framing of points for determination, which were already determined under a single issue. Further, if the matter is remanded back to the 1st Appellate Court on the sole ground for framing appropriate points for determination, it would cause lot of inconvenience and hardship to the parties and no useful purpose will be served. As both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the defendant/appellant failed to prove that he gave some gold ornaments to the plaintiffs at the time of their marriages and in lieu thereof, he kept item No.1 of suit schedule property in his possession and perfected his title to it by adverse possession and the plaintiffs are entitled for equal share in item No.1, since no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the second appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 08.06.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 492 of 2008. JUDGEMENT Dt. 08.06.2011. [1] 2003 (3) ALT 527 [2] 2003 (4) ALT 158 [3] 1997 (3) ALT 266 [4] 1992 (2) ALT 256