THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.659 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The plaintiﬀ, who was unsuccessful in the Courts below, is the appellant. Her suit being O.S.No.265 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, for partition of suit schedule property being the house bearing D.No.2-19-3, Seelamvari Veedhi, Alcot Gardens, Rajahmundry, was dismissed on 20.02.2007. Her appeal being A.S.No.97 of 2007 was also dismissed on 04.03.2010 by the Court of I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The background facts necessary for disposal of the case are as follows. Patnala Appanna had two wives namely Parvathamma and Chintalamma. Appanna died on 18.05.1998 and Chintalamma predeceased him on 21.10.1990. The plaintiﬀ instituted the suit alleging that she is the daughter of Chintalamma; her mother and Parvathamma purchased suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 06.05.1967 and after death of Chintalamma, she is entitled for equal share in the property. The suit was opposed by Parvathamma (ﬁrst wife of Appanna). She died during pendency of the suit on 28.06.2004 and defendants 2 and 3 were brought on record as legal representatives. The case of the defendants is that Chintalamma had only son by name Satyanarayana, who died issueless and his widow migrated to Kakinada and married again. The plaintiﬀ is not the daughter of Chintalamma and therefore, she has no right to seek partition. They also pleaded that defendants are residing in the suit schedule property. It is their case that the plaintiﬀ, misguiding Appanna, Chintalamma and Parvathamma, obtained loan from Aryapuram Cooperative Urban Bank (Urban Bank, for brevity), which was discharged. The plaintiﬀ played fraud in obtaining the loan by describing herself as daughter of Appanna. The trial Court framed ﬁve issues. During the trial, the plaintiﬀ examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A20. She also examined P.Ws.2 to 4. The son of the ﬁrst defendant deposed as D.W.1 and the daughter deposed as D.W.2. Two more witnesses were also examined and Exs.B1 to B25 were marked. In addition, Exs.X1, X2, C1 and C2 were also marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court recorded a ﬁnding that the plaintiﬀ is not the daughter of Appanna and Chintalamma and that except Ex.A2-aﬃdavit, there is no other document supporting her case that she is the daughter of Chintalamma. The trial Court also recorded a ﬁnding that after death of Chintalamma, the defendants became absolute owners of the property and that the suit for partition would not lie. The appellate Court, on reconsideration of the evidence, relied on the admissions made by P.W.1 and dismissed the appeal. The counsel for the appellant-plaintiﬀ would submit that Ex.A2 would clinchingly show that the plaintiﬀ is the daughter of Appanna and Chintalamma, as otherwise there would not be any necessity for Appanna to produce Ex.A2 before the Urban Bank. After dealing with Ex.A2, the ﬁrst appellate Court came to the conclusion that except Ex.A2, based on which subsequent documents came into existence, there is no other corroborating evidence to show that plaintiﬀ is the daughter of Appanna and Chintalamma. The ﬁrst appellate Court also relied on the admissions made by P.W.1 that she cannot even name the relatives, who can support her claim as daughter of Chintalamma and that there is no other evidence showing her to be the daughter of Appanna. Thus, the plaintiﬀ failed to discharge the burden, which heavily rested on her to prove her allegation that she is the daughter of Appanna and Chintalamma. Indeed, the ﬁrst defendant Parvathamma died on 28.06.2004 and during her life time, the plaintiﬀ did not even choose to give a notice for partition. It is only after the death of Parvathamma, the plaintiﬀ ﬁled the suit without giving any notice. Therefore, on probabilities both the Courts found that her case as not proved. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 7th December 2011 RRB