IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA RADESH AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.574 2011 Date: 04.11.2011 Between: 1.Reminisetty Seetharamma and 2 others. .....Appellants-Defendants AND Battineni Lakshmi Parvathi. ....Respondent-plaintiff HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.574 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, dated 17.02.2011 passed in A.S.No.28 of 2009 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dated 22.10.2009 passed in O.S.No.445 of 2004. Appellants herein are the defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.445 of 2004. Brief facts for disposal of this appeal are as follows: The respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them and their men from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the respondent herein that she purchased the suit schedule property from one Raminisetty Thirupathamma, who is her mother, under a registered sale deed dated 29.09.2003. However, the defendants, who are the wife and children of the brother of the plaintiff, tried to interfere with the said property. Therefore, the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction. The said suit was contested by the defendants by written statement on the ground that the property in question including other properties are the ancestral properties of one Reminisetty Veeraiah, paternal grandfather of defendants 2 and 3 and father of the plaintiff and in all the said properties, the father of defendants is having undivided half share. 3rd appellant herein filed the suit being O.S.No.2 of 2005 against the 2nd appellant and respondent herein and others seeking partition of the suit schedule property. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B14 were marked. The trial Court, on a consideration of the rival contentions and also the entire material available on record, dismissed the suit, O.S.No.2 of 2005, filed by the 3rd appellant herein and decreed the suit, O.S.No.445 of 2004, filed by the respondent herein. Against the said common judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.445 of 2004 and O.S.No.2 of 2005, the appellants herein preferred an appeal being A.S.No.28 of 2209 and the lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal confirming the common judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 22.10.2009 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2005 and O.S.No.445 of 2004, by its judgment dated 17.02.2011. Against which the present second appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgments. The Courts below on consideration of the evidence available on record found that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of one Reminisetty Veeraiah and he is entitled to sell the properties in favour of the respondent-plaintiff herein. Further, the Courts below rightly dismissed the suit filed by the 3rd appellant herein as he sought only partial partition of the properties possessed by his paternal grand father Reminisetty Veeraiah. The trial Court on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, decreed the suit in question, which was rightly confirmed by the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence. This Court sitting under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is loath to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. I, therefore, do not find any question of law, much less, any substantial question of law, in this appeal. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUISTICE V.ESWARAIAH 04.11.2011 Gsn.