THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No. 653 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 passed in A.S. No. 61 of 2007 by the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants herein against the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2007 passed in O.S. No. 50 of 2003 by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, whereunder the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein for partition of the plaint schedule properties, was preliminarily decreed in respect of the properties in Sl.Nos.3 to 13 of item No.1 of plaint A schedule properties, dividing the said properties into two equal shares and allotting one such share to the 1st respondent-plaintiff and the remaining share to the appellants herein i.e. defendants 2 and 4 in the suit equally. Heard the counsel for the appellants and perused the judgments of the Courts below and other material available on record. A perusal of the judgment of the Court of first instance would reveal that the Court of first instance, having considered the rival contentions of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, has categorically found that item Nos. 3 to 13 of the plaint A-schedule properties are the joint family properties, and though the appellants-defendants have contended that partition of the said properties had already taken place, but in the absence of any cogent and corroborated evidence to prove their contention, disbelieved the version of the appellants-defendants and held that those properties are liable for partition. Further, the properties shown in Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 of Item No.1 of plaint A-schedule, being DKT lands, and there being no evidence to show that items 2 to 4 of the plaint A schedule as also the plaint B schedule properties are purchased out of the joint family funds and they belong to joint family, the Court of first instance held that they are not liable for partition. So far as the claim of the appellants with regard to partition of properties shown in the schedule of 1st defendant’s written statement, is concerned, the Court of first instance held that there was no evidence to show that those properties belong to joint family and hence, they are not liable for partition. The first appellate Court, having appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and appraised the judgment of the Court of first instance, agreed with the findings of the Court of first instance and recorded concurrent findings. The findings of the Courts below, being cogent and concurrent based on the evidence available on record, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for therewith in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The second appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed, however, without costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 22nd September, 2011. IBL