IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL NO : 216 of 2009 (Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the decree dated 29/09/2008 in AS No. 43 of 2002 on the file of the Court of SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER preferred against the decree dated 26/08/2002 in OS No. 119 of 1996 on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge, Piler) Between: 1 Yanamala Sidda Rami Reddy S/o. Venkata Reddy R/o. Yanamalavaripalle, H/o. Kamalla of Y.V.Palem (M), Chittoor District. 2 Yanamala Chandra Sekhar Reddy S/o. Venkata Reddy R/o. 6-41, Ullipatteda of Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 Yanamala Sidda Reddy (died) 2 Yanamala Lakshmamma W/o. Sidda Reddy R/o. Yanamlavaripalli, H/o. Komalla, Y.V.Palem (M), Chittoor District. 3 Yanamala Rajasekhar Reddy S/o. Sidda Reddy R/o. Yanamlavaripalli, H/o. Komalla, Y.V.Palem (M), Chittoor District. 4 Yanamala Prabhakar Reddy S/o. Sidda Reddy R/o. Yanamlavaripalli, H/o. Komalla, Y.V.Palem (M), Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.JYOTHEESWAR REDDY The Court Delivered the Following JUDGEMENT:-- Form-NIC-OGS/SA{SUMAN} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.216 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellants are the defendants in the suit O.S.119/1996 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pileru filed by the respondents herein for partition and for separate possession of the 3/4th share in the plaint schedule property. The trial Judge by judgment and decree dated 26.08.2002 passed a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and the 1st plaintiff is entitled for separate possession of the 1/4th share and the 2nd plaintiff is entitled for separate possession of half share i.e. both the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/4th share and the defendants are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendants filed appeal in A.S.43/2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler and the lower appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 29.09.2008 dismissed the appeal, against which the present second appeal is filed by the defendants. 2. The suit schedule property originally belongs to the ancestors of the plaintiffs. Subsequently the mother of the plaintiffs sold half share in the plaint schedule property to one Chinnapoli Chenga Reddy and the said Chenga Reddy again sold the said property to one Kanala Nagireddy. The 1st plaintiff married the daughter of the said Nagireddy who is the 2nd plaintiff. Thus, the 2nd plaintiff is the wife of the 1st plaintiff. It is stated that the said Kanala Nagireddy gifted half share in favour of the 2nd plaintiff under Ex.A2 and to that extent there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, it is the case of the 2nd plaintiff that she is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property. It is also not in dispute that 1/4th share belongs to Venkatareddy, the brother of the 1st plaintiff and his 1/4th share was sold in favour of the defendants under Ex.B1. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the defendants acquiring the right over 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The dispute is with regard to remaining 1/4th share of the suit schedule property alone. There is no dispute that the 1st plaintiff is having 1/4th share, but the case of the defendants was that the 1st plaintiff exchanged his 1/4th share in favour of the defendants by taking mango trees and Kanuga tope from the defendants and the said 1/4th share is being enjoyed by the defendants and the defendants have right, title and possession over the said 1/4th share of the 1st plaintiff as well as the 1/4th share purchased from Venkatareddy and thus, the defendants claimed half share in the total extent of the schedule property. 3. The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence held that admittedly the defendants have purchased 1/4th share of the suit schedule property under Ex.B1 and they have not filed any document to show that there was an exchange of property in between the 1st plaintiff and the defendants and that they have got half share in the suit schedule property. Except the oral testimony of the defendants, the defendants have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their claim that they have got half share in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court rightly held that the 1st plaintiff has got 1/4th share, 2nd plaintiff has got half share and the defendants got 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and thus, plaintiffs 1 and 2 put together got 3/4th share and the defendants got 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. 4. The lower appellate Court also on re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence considered the relevant points as to whether both the plaintiffs together are entitled to 3/4th share and whether the defendants are having half share in the plaint schedule property as claimed by them and held that the defendants are having 1/4th share only in the suit schedule property, the 1st plaintiff is having 1/4th share and the 2nd plaintiff is having half share as per the admitted documentary evidence available on record. 5. In view of the concurrent findings of 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. 6. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 21.08.2009 Dsr