THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.205 OF 2011 Dated:21.10.2011 Between: Geddam Appa Rao .. Appellant And Geddam Peda Chinna Rao (died) and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.205 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein (hereafter, the plaintiff) instituted O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, seeking a decree of partition of two residential houses situated Pithapuram Municipality. The trial Court dismissed the said suit on 29.03.2004. The appellate Court also dismissed A.S.No.38 of 2006 on 17.06.2010. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present Second Appeal. The case of the plaintiff is as follows. The plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and one Ramudu are the sons of late Venkanna. The suit schedule property was purchased by said Venkanna and the plaintiff and therefore they are co-owners. Ramudu received a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the plaintiff and left the village relinquishing his right. The first defendant was in possession of the property, but he refused for partition. Therefore, he filed the suit. In the suit, second defendant remained ex parte. The first defendant Geddam Peda Chinnarao alone contested the suit alleging that the suit property was purchased by his father and plaintiff. He further alleged that he purchased 1/4th share of Ramudu and that the second defendant’s share was purchased by the plaintiff. Thus, the entire property consisting of two shares and the eastern side tiled house has gone to the share of plaintiff and the western side house/thatched hut was in possession of the first defendant. The trial Court framed four issues. Except examining himself as P.W.1, the plaintiff did not lead any other evidence. The first defendant deposed as D.W.1 and he also examined two other witnesses and marked Exs.B1 and B2 – property tax demand notices. The Court marked Exs.X1 and X2. On considering the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the suit schedule property as joint family property and accordingly dismissed the suit. The findings are confirmed by the appellate Court. The counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below were in error in dismissing the suit for non-joinder of Ramudu, who is nothing to do with the property. According to him, when the first defendant admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the eastern side house, the Courts below ought to have drawn an inference that the property is liable for partition. This Court has perused both the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. As rightly observed by the appellate Court that when a person alleges something over the property, the burden lies on such person to prove the allegation. In this case, plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to show that the suit schedule property was the joint family property of his father Venkanna. His version that Ramudu relinquished his right also remained unproved. On the basis of allegations made by the plaintiff which were not proved to the satisfaction of the Court, the suit cannot be decreed for partition. The Second Appeal does not involve any question of law. The Second Appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 21.10.2011 KH