Telangana High Court
Pothuraju Shivaiah, vs Pothuraju Ramantham, on 19 September, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
SECOND APPEAL NO.57 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The present Second Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff
against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2011 in A.S.No.22 of
2007 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar, dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 30.10.2006 in O.S.No. 120 of 2006 on the file of Junior
Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam.
2. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants
for partition and separate possession duly dividing the suit schedule
property into four equal shares, with metes and bounds, and for
allotment and separate possession of 1/4th share to the plaintiff out of
suit schedule property and to award costs. Plaintiff is the appellant
3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 was
examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. No evidence was adduced
by the defendants as they remained ex parte.
GAC,J
SA NO.57 of 2012
4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
trial court dismissed the suit with a finding that absolutely no material
is placed by the plaintiff to establish that he is the joint owner and
possessor of suit schedule land along with defendants 1 to 3, and as
such, the plaintiff is not entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule
land.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the plaintiff
has filed appeal vide A.S.No.22 of 2007 and the first-appellate Court,
after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and
also rival contentions made by both the parties, dismissed the appeal,
confirming the judgment of the trial court.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first
appellate court, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff,
raising the substantial questions of law, which are as under:
(a) Whether once existence of joint family was in dispute
necessarily the property held by the family assumed the
GAC,J
SA NO.57 of 2012
character of co-person every member of the family would
be entitled by birth t a share in such property?
(b) Whether the possession by one co-owner is not by itself
the possession of other co-owner?
(c) Whether separate possession of portion of property is it a
presumption of property?
(d) Whether non-mentioning of the name of the co-person in
revenue record is disentitled for partition?
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
8. On perusal of the substantial questions of law raised by the
appellant, it is evident that they all relate to concurrent findings of fact
by both the courts below, but not on law. The scope of Section 100 of
Civil Procedure Code is very limited, and the High Courts can only
interfere in the judgment of the courts below, if any substantial
question of law is involved. In the absence of any substantial question
of law the second appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
GAC,J
SA NO.57 of 2012
9. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of
admission, as devoid of merit, confirming the judgment dated
10.06.2011 in A.S.No.22 of 2007 on the file of Principal District
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY,J
19.09.2022
trr
