THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1410 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant is defendant No.13 in the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff in O.S.No.338 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 32 equal shares and to allot four such shares to the plaintiff and for separate possession. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed a preliminary decree on 27-09-2002, by observing as follows:- “In the result, a preliminary decree is passed allotting 15/56th share in item-1 and 1/8th share in item-2 of plaint schedule property. Regarding claim of past profits, the plaintiff is at liberty to move the court by way of separate application after allotment of her share. In the circumstances of the case without costs. As the suit is filed as pauper, sent copy of decree to Collector to collect the court fee from the plaintiff” Aggrieved by the same, the 13th defendant, who is said to have purchased item No.1 of plaint schedule property from the brothers of the plaintiff, filed A.S.No.119 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The 13th defendant also filed I.A.No.97 of 2010 to receive original partition list, dated 22-01-1982, as additional evidence. The lower appellate court held that the 13th defendant failed to show any ground that in spite of exercise of due diligence he could not file partition list before the trial court and accordingly, rejected the same and insofar as the decree in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is concerned, the appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. I have perused the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. I am of the opinion that the trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the entire material available on record, rightly passed a preliminary decree. Further, the 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. __________ 29-09-2011 Prv