HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN SECOND APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Second Appeal is preferred by defendants 1 to 5 in the Suit. The first respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming 5/12th share of the joint ancestral property. The first appellant herein is the first defendant in the Suit. The first respondent-plaintiff is the daughter of the first appellant’s brother. The suit in O.S.No. 30 of 2002, was decreed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and the appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the District Judge, Srikakulam in A.S.No. 49 of 2007 dated 22.3.2010. The defence put up by the first appellant herein, in O.S.No. 30 of 2002, was that he had given Rs. 3,000/- to the first respondent-plaintiff through her maternal grand father and, as a consequence thereof, the first respondent had executed the relinquishment deed dated 6.7.1982. Both the Courts below disbelieved this contention. The remedy of a Second Appeal is available only on a substantial question of law. It is only if the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below is either perverse, or is not based on any evidence whatsoever, would it give rise to a substantial question of law. Both the Courts have, on an analysis of the evidence on record, disbelieved the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that the first respondent-plaintiff had relinquished her rights over the ancestral property. The conclusions arrived at by both the courts below are on the basis of the evidence on record. These conclusions do not suffer from perversity nor can they be said to be based on no evidence. I see no reason, therefore, to entertain the Second Appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J DATE: 09.09.2010 KA