HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 731 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 12.03.2010 made in A.S.No. 9 of 2005 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Visakhapatnam confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 755 of 1996 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam dated 23.12.2003. Defendant No. 5 in the Suit is the appellant herein and the respondents herein filed the suit O.S.No. 755 of 1996 for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property into six equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff therein. That suit was decreed with costs and a preliminary decree was passed for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff and plaintiff was directed to pay the advoleram court fees valuing the relief of Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, within 15 days from that day. Being aggrieved by the same, 5th defendant in the suit filed A.S.No. 9 of 2005 and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the court below. Being aggrieved by the same, the 5th defendant filed the present Second Appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that since both the attesters died and scribe was examined, he sought execution of the deed but the trial Court has considered that aspect and negatived the plea on the ground of non examination of attestors. He further contended that he filed an application I.A.No. 251 of 2009 along with the appeal to receive additional evidence but the Appellate Court disbelieved the additional evidence. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also perused the entire material made available on record. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit with costs. On appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act prescribes procedure as to how the attestation is to be made. The relevant portion reads as under: “ The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has been some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mar, or of the signature of such other person and each of the witness shall sign the will in the presence of the testator……..” Be that as it may, in my opinion the trial court has considered the matter objectively and decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 23.07.2010 KA