THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1223 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellants are defendants 4 to 6 in the suit in O.S.No.354 of 2001 filed by the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff for partition of the suit schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one such share to her. The trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, decreed the suit preliminarily with costs holding that the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are entitled to 1/4th share each and defendants 4 to 6 are entitled to half share. Aggrieved thereby, defendants 4 to 6 filed A.S.No.452 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, vide its judgment and decree, dated 16-08-2010, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, defendants 4 to 6 filed the present Second Appeal. It is the case of the appellants/defendants 4 to 6, who are wife and children of the 1st defendant, that they are the owners of the plaint schedule property by virtue of a will dated 05-06-2002 executed by one Kantamma in favour of their father, and therefore, the suit schedule property is not liable for partition. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellants have miserably failed to prove the execution of the Will by Kantamma in favour of the 1st defendant and therefore, the suit schedule property is liable for partition, and accordingly decreed the suit preliminary with costs. Aggrieved thereby, defendants 4 to 6 filed A.S.No.452 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The lower appellate court vide its judgment and decree, dated 16-08-2010, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. I am of the opinion that the trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the entire material available on record, rightly decreed the suit preliminarily with costs. Further, the lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 21-10-2011 Prv