THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM S.A. No. 364 of 2010 Dated. 28–10-2010 Between: Chittem Penchalamma and others. …Appellants/Plaintiffs Vs. Pasupuleti Mallikarjuna Rao and another. …Respondents/defendants. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM S.A.No. 364 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: This is a plaintiffs’ appeal directed against the concurrent judgments of the learned I-Additional Junior Civil Jude, Ongole dated 26-02-2007 rejecting O.S.No. 166 of 2001 as confirmed by the learned VII-Additional District Judge, Ongole rejecting the appeal suit in A.S.No. 113 of 2007 by the judgment dated 18-03-2008. The appellants herein filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. On the admitted factual scenario, the plaintiffs -- Venkaiah, his father and three brothers – Kotaiah, Venkata Rao and Naraiah were joint family and enjoying the suit schedule property jointly. On the death of Venkaiah, they tried to partition the property and failed due to lack of amicability. Venkat Rao filed O.S.No. 238 of 1997 for partition which abated on the death of Venkata Rao. According to the plaintiffs after the death of Venkat Rao they came into possession of Venkata Rao’s share and raised gingili crop and since the defendants are interfering with their possession and enjoyment, they filed the suit. The defendants claimed that after the death of their father, the brothers partitioned the properties; Venkata Rao, one of the bothers, died issueless and prior to his death settled his share of property in favour of 2nd defendant by way of registered settlement deed dated 24-07-2009 and since then the 2nd defendant is in possession of the same. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court on independent consideration of the evidence available on record and more particularly relying on the admissions of the plaintiff as P.W.1 in his cross-examination and on the revenue records – Exs.B.1 to B.14, held that after the death of their father, the brothers partitioned the property and were in possession of individual shares and that the plaintiffs failed to establish possession over the suit schedule property which originally fell to the share of Venkata Rao. No question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, falls for consideration in the second appeal. It is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 28-10-2010 Pvks/*