THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL No. 1378 of 2010 Dated: 30-4-2011 Judgment: Unsuccessful in two litigative campaigns is the appellant before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-3-2010 of the learned I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry rejecting A.S.No. 125 of 2007 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 19-9-2006 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in O.S.No. 919 of 2000. The appellant is the 4th defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. On the admitted factual scenario, defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of one Rajaratnam (deceased) and the 3rd defendant Pentamma, while the plaintiff is the son of the 1st defendant. The plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of the 3rd defendant and Rajaratnam, her husband under a sale deed dated 7-5-1979. According to the plaintiff and as asserted in the plaint, the 1st defendant neglected to maintain himself and his mother and was trying to avoid his liability. With the connivance of defendants 2 and 3, he alienated the schedule property to the 4th defendant without consideration under a sale deed dated 24-6-2000 which is not binding on the plaintiff, since the property is the joint family property and Rajaratham died intestate and defendants 1 to 3 have 1/3rd share each and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share relatable to his father. After getting a legal notice issued to the defendants prior to the execution of the sale deed and since the sale deed was executed nonetheless the suit was filed for declaration that the sale deed dated 24-6-2000 is not valid. Both the courts below framed an issue whether the 3rd defendant purchased the plaint schedule property with her own funds and obtained a sale deed in her name and in the name of her husband Rajaratnam; and another issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that the sale deed dated 24-6-2000 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is not valid and binding. On the first issue, the Courts below concurrently found and particularly since the 3rd defendant failed to come to the Court and assert that she had the capacity and financial resources to pay the entire consideration under Ex.A1, sale deed date 7-5-1979, that the property is the joint family property and execution of the sale deed by defendants 1 to 3 alone in favour of the 4th defendant is not valid; accordingly the second issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff. The concurrent findings of fact based on a rationale analysis of the evidence on record warrants no interference in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 30th April, 2011 GRR