THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD LPA.Nos.283 and 301 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Since common questions arise in these two appeals, they are taken up together for disposal. The appellants are the unsuccessful plaintiffs all along, who sought for partition of the suit schedule properties mainly on the ground that they constitute joint family property and hence liable for partition and consequently, they would be entitled to their respective shares as per the personal law. As far as the members of the family are concerned, who are parties to the proceedings, there is no serious contest as such, but only the contest is with the alinees. After the pleadings and the regular trial, both at the trial Court as well as before the learned Single Judge, the question was as to whether the properties in question were put into common hutch pot. Both, the trial Court and the learned Single Judge did not agree with the said finding, on consideration of the evidence and material on record and held that those properties were never treated as joint family properties, but treated only as self acquired property, as could be evident from Ex.A.13, dated 2-10- 2010. The inter se relationship in between the parties is not in dispute. The ancestors is traced back to the property acquired through adoption and subsequent acquisition by the ancestor, who has been disposing off the properties, though it has been culled out that not for any legal necessity. For the sake of repetition and to avoid the same, we do not refer to the parties as arrayed in both the suits, which are one for partitioned in respect of the suit schedule properties, which sought to rest on the ground that they are all joint and ancestral properties and are liable for partition. There has been a regular trial in both the cases. After framing of the issues where both sides let in their evidence, the trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge has found that the properties are only self acquired properties and it is difficult to hold that the same was thrown in common hutch pot. However, in regard to certain items, there has been a decree in respect of which there is no appeal by the other defendants. Having regard to the finding of fact as arrived at and as found by the trial Court and by the learned single Judge concurrently, it cannot be said that there is any question, which hinges upon the law or the substantial one to warrant an interference. Even though an attempt was made in these appeals at this stage as well once again bringing forth the plea of throwing into the hutch pot, but nothing as such has been pointed out, which could have been mis-noticed either by the trial Court or by the learned Single Judge, nor it can be said that the findings of the trial Court and the learned Single Judge are in any way perverse. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in both the appeals. Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) ____________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD,J) dated: 6 -04-2011 grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) LPA.Nos.283 and 301 of 2001 Dated: 6 -04-2010 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD P.D.Judgment prepared by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao LPA.Nos.283 and 301 of 2001 Circulated to Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad for perusal.