HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO S.A.NO.1115 OF 2007 DATE: 29.11.2010 BETWEEN: Thatavarthi Durga Satyanarayana Gupta and another .. Appellants And Thatavarthi Peramma and others ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO S.A.NO.1115 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District in A.S.No.15 of 2001 confirming the decree and judgment dated 07.12.2000 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District in O.S.No.14 of 1998. The plaintiffs are the appellants. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents. The husband of the first respondent executed a registered will bequeathing 1/4th of the schedule mentioned property in her favour with absolute right, and to enjoy the remaining 3/4th of the property during her life time and thereafter, to be vested on the defendants/respondents 2 to 4, who are the daughters of defendant No.1 with full rights. The appellants filed the suit basing on the agreement dated 11.03.1995 under which the respondents said to have agreed to execute a registered relinquishment deed in favour of the appellants, who are minors by then. The appellants are no other than the grand children of respondent No.1 and Thatavarthi Lakshminarayana. It was contended by the respondents that after the death of the husband of the first respondent, the son who is no other than the father of the appellants refused to even cremate the dead body of his father and insisted upon settling some substantial property in favour of his sons. It was established before the learned trial court that the grandfather of the appellants died on 09.03.1995 and cremation was took place on 11.03.1995 and PW.1 also admitted that they refused to cremate the dead body of their grandfather. According to the respondents, in the said situation they were forced to sign on some papers and subsequently, the alleged agreement dated 11.03.1995 was fabricated on the said papers. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings to the effect that the first respondent was given only a limited right to enjoy 3/4th of the property interest under the registered will and that her daughters i.e. respondents 2 to 4 will get the property only after the death of the first respondent. Therefore, they do not have any existing right to relinquish any property in favour of the appellants. The Courts below further held concurrently that the agreement is not supported by any consideration and it is not enforceable. Considering all the aspects of the matter, the crucial point would be that the subject matter of dispute is immoveable property any right or share in the said property can only be relinquished by executing a registered relinquishment deed. Therefore, an agreement to execute a registered relinquishment deed which is not supported by any consideration is not enforceable under law. Further, the respondents have acquired no right to execute the said agreement even if it is considered to be true. For the maintainability of the second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C, a substantial question of law should be involved for consideration. In the instant case, no substantial question of law is involved for consideration. The concurrent findings of facts of law arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be interfered in the second appeal, since, it cannot be said that the concurrent findings of the courts below are either perverse or not based on the evidence. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 29.11.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO S.A.NO.1115 OF 2007 DATE: 29.11.2010