THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO SECOND APPEAL NO. 391 OF 1995 ORDER: This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, at the instance of the defendants, who seek to assail the correctness of the judgment and decree in A S No. 76 of 1989 dated 30.1.1995 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur allowing the appeal filed at the instance of the respondents/plaintiffs being a suit filed by them for partition holding that the suit properties are liable for partition and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O S No. 96 of 1983 dated 28.2.1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla dismissing the said suit. Briefly stated facts which are not in dispute are that the parties are brothers and legal heirs of late Subbaiah who was holding properties in question in his capacity of service-holder of lands in question which are service-Inam lands for the purpose of rendering service to Sri Agastheswaram Sri Chennakeshava Swamy and Sri Kasi Viswanatha Swamy Temples. In the suit the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs was that subsequent to the death of their father, though in the year 1942, all the parties herein have become entitled to the shares in spite of the fact that the it is a service Inam lands. However, the said suit was contested interalia on various grounds by the appellants especially stating that the suit lands are not liable for partition and plaintiff is not entitled to make claim since plaintiff left the family for eking out his livelihood elsewhere and lost his right. The Trial Court after holding a regular enquiry where both sides let in evidence and on appreciation thereof found that the patta stands in the name of appellants herein in Ex.B4 and B.5 and since those defendants who are rendering service but not the plaintiff, hence rejected the claim of the plaintiff for entitlement of any share as such, and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court on reappreciation of the entire material and evidence found that though since the lands in question are service Inam, the question of relinquishment does not arise as long as there is waiver and there being no relinquishment of his rights on the part of the plaintiff he would not loose any claim and therefore irrespective of patta granted in favour of the appellants/defendants , necessarily the said land being that of service Inam, which has been held in favour of ancestors of the parties, hence allowed the appeal. Hence, the present Second Appeal. The only submission made in this appeal is that having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has admittedly left the village for eking out livelihood and is not rendering any service, therefore, it amounts to abandonment and thus he cannot make any claim. The same was rebutted on behalf of the respondents. On consideration of the submissions and perusal of the material as already stated above the undisputed fact that there is no denial between the relationship between the parties, both being brothers and admittedly the suit property held by their ancestors as service Inam lands attached to an institution and though the case of the appellants is to the effect that respondent/plaintiff is not rendering service, since it has been rightly held by the lower Appellate Court that there being no waiver or relinquishment by the respondent/plaintiff he would not loose any right, title or interest and he succeeds to on par with the defendants. In view of the same, I do not find any error in regard to the conclusions arrived at by the lower Appellate Court. The appeal does not give raise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law warranting interference of this Court in the present second appeal. There are no merits in the present Second Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ________________ B PRAKASH RAO,J DATE: 2.8.2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO SECOND APPEAL NO. 391 OF 1995 DATE: 2.8.2010