APHC010251382012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3397]

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA

KRISHNA RAO

SECOND APPEAL NO: 817/2012

Between:

T.satyanarayana ...APPELLANT

AND

Turangi Somaraju Died and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. K L B KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA

2. 0

The Court made the following:

Reserved on 29.04.2026

Pronounced on 15.06.2026

Uploaded on 15.06.2026

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

SECOND APPEAL No. 817 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree

dated 22.03.2012, in A.S.No.47 of 2005, on the file of the III Additional District

Judge, Kakinada, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2005 in

O.S.No.171 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant, and respondent Nos.1 to 7 are the

plaintiffs in O.S.No.171 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kakinada. During the pendency of the first appeal proceedings before the First

Appellate Court, respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff No.1 died and respondent

No.8, who is the 2nd wife of plaintiff No.1, was added as the legal

representative of deceased plaintiff No.1. As plaintiff No.1 got another daughter,

i.e., respondent No.9 herein, she was also brought on record as the legal

representative of deceased plaintiff No.1.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.171 of 1998, on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, with a prayer for partition of the suit

schedule properties viz. ‘A and B’ schedule properties against the defendant

into 8 equal shares with good and bad qualities by metes and bounds and allot

7 such shares, i.e., each one such share to each plaintiff, and pass a final

decree in terms of the preliminary decree and put the plaintiffs in separate

possession from the joint possession and enjoyment and for costs.

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, after conclusion of

trial, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs

in the above said suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.47 of 2005, before the III

Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The learned III Additional District Judge,

Kakinada, allowed the first appeal by reversing the judgment and decree

passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant

approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be

referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in

O.S.171 of 1998, is as follows:

The plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 filed the suit against the sole defendant for

partition of plaint ‘A’ schedule property, which is a vacant site in an extent of

780 Sq.yards, and plaint ‘B’ schedule property, which is a house bearing

D.No.69-6-125 and the site in an extent of 300 Sq.yards situated in

Gaigolupadu Village, Ramanayyapeta of Kakinada Rural Mandal, into 8 equal

shares and for allotment of one such share to each of them contending that the

said properties are ancestral properties, that there was no partition and that

plaintiff Nos.2 to 7, being the daughters of plaintiff No.1 through his 2nd wife,

and the defendant, who is the son of plaintiff No.1 through his 1st wife, are

entitled to the said properties. The plaintiffs pleaded that there were disputes

between the defendant and one Bonthu Suryanarayana and in that respect,

there is a case pending before the II Class Magistrate Court, Kakinada, and the

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

defendant, who is none other than the son of plaintiff No.1, made him believe

that some papers containing his signatures are to be filed into Court and

obtained his left hand thumb impressions and subsequently, he came to know

that the defendant obtained a relinquishment deed from him with regard to

plaint ‘A’ schedule property by cheating him and by playing fraud and

misguiding him. Therefore, plaintiff No.1 cancelled the said relinquishment deed

by executing a registered cancellation deed mentioning the true facts. The

plaintiffs further pleaded that in spite of the notice dated 27.04.2008 demanding

partition of the properties got issued by the plaintiffs, the defendant, having

received the same, kept quiet without issuing any reply and also without co-

operating for partition. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present

suit.

7. The defendant filed written statement and the brief averments in the

written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

The defendant pleaded that plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are the daughters of

Smt.Raghava and plaintiff No.1 did not marry the said Raghava and plaintiff

Nos.2 to 7 were not born to her through plaintiff No.1. The defendant further

pleaded that plaintiff No.1 kept the said Raghava as his concubine and as such

plaintiff No.1 has been looking after plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 and the plaint ‘A’

schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant

and plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 have no right whatsoever in the property. The defendant

further pleaded that at the instance of one M.Bhadra Rao and one Rambabu,

plaintiff No.1 executed a cancellation deed dated 04.04.1998 with false

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

allegations and since 16.03.1998, the defendant alone has been in possession

and enjoyment of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and the plaintiffs have no right

whatsoever therein and further the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is the ancestral

property of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant and the other plaintiffs have no right

in the said property and as such, he prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Kakinada, framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiffs 2 to 7 are legitimate children of the 1

st

plaintiff?

2) Whether registered cancellation deed dated 04.04.1998 is valid?

3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of partition as prayed for?

and

4) To what relief?

9. During the course of trial before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs,

P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of

the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked.

10. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, after conclusion of

trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and

documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby,

the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.47

of 2005, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, wherein the

following points came up for consideration:

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

1) Whether the plaintiff 2 to 7/appellants 2 to 7 are the legitimate children of

the 1

st

plaintiff/1

st

appellant?

2) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled to seek for partition of the

plaint schedule properties without seeking for cancellation of the

relinquishment deed dated 16.03.1998?

3) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled for partition of the plaint ‘A’

and ‘B’ schedule properties as prayed for?

4) Whether the impugned decree and judgment are liable to be set aside?

and

5) To what relief?

11. The learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, i.e., the first appellate

Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the

defendant and allowed the appeal suit filed by the plaintiffs. Felt aggrieved of

the same, the defendant in O.S.171 of 1998 filed the present second appeal

before this Court.

12. Heard Sri K.L.B.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant,

and Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel respondents.

13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an

inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A

second appeal preferred under Section 100 of C.P.C., could be admitted only

when the appellant satisfies the Court that substantial question of law between

the parties arise in the case. A proper test for determining whether a question of

law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an

open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or

is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a case

of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi

1

, the Apex Court held that it is

not within the domain of High Court to investigate grounds on which the findings

were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a

case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are

possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the

High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.

Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant

should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in

second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and contents

of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law.

14. The defendant having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for him to meet the above

principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of

law.

15. The contention of appellant is that the judgment and decree of the First

Appellate Court is contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed

by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

16. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that mother of plaintiff

Nos.2 to 7 is not the wife of plaintiff No.1 and the plaintiff No.1 was not the

1

(2007) 8 SCC 155

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 and that plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are not entitled to any

share in the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel for

respondent/plaintiff contends that the defendant is the son of plaintiff No.1, born

to his 1

st

wife and the 1

st

wife of plaintiff No.1 died when the defendant was at

the age of 7 or 8 years, and later plaintiff No.1 married one Raghava and

plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 were born to the said Raghava through plaintiff No.1. As

could be seen from the material on record, in the plaint itself the plaintiff

specifically pleaded that plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are his daughters born through his

2

nd

wife Raghava. In the plaint, in paragraph No.3, the plaintiff specifically

pleaded that plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are his daughters and the defendant is his son

and plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 were born through the 2

nd

wife of plaintiff No.1, whereas

the defendant is the son born through the 1

st

wife of plaintiff No.1.

17. The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A-1, the copy of the legal notice said to have

been issued by the plaintiffs through their counsel to the defendant. Ex.A-1

reveals that prior to filing of the suit the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated

27.04.1998 under Ex.A-1, wherein it is specifically pleaded that plaintiff Nos.2 to

7 are the daughters of the plaintiff No.1 born through the 2

nd

wife and the

defendant is the only son born through his 1

st

wife and plaintiff No.1 reiterated

in Ex.A-1 that after the death of his 1

st

wife, while the defendant was aged

about 7 or 8 years, he married one Raghava as his 2

nd

wife and through

Raghava he gave birth to six (06) daughters viz. plaintiff Nos.2 to 7

respectively. Ex.A-2 reveals that the defendant received the said notice and the

defendant also admits his signature on Ex.A-2 postal acknowledgment card. It

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

is an admitted fact that no reply notice was given by the defendant to Ex.A-1

legal notice issued by the plaintiff. The defendant, who received such notice

before filing of the suit, did not even choose to send a reply denying the

paternity of plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 and the marriage of Raghava with plaintiff No.1.

The defendant has not explained the reasons for not responding to Ex.A-1 legal

notice. The appellant simply contended that he did not receive any notice. The

fact remains that the plaintiff got issued Ex.A-1 legal notice and the defendant

acknowledged the same under Ex.A-2. The defendant admitted that the

signature on Ex.A-2 postal acknowledgment card belongs to him. This

circumstance goes a long way in showing that the defendant came up with a

belated and false theory both about the paternity of plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 and the

status of Raghava with plaintiff No.1.

18. The defendant contended in the written statement itself that plaintiff

Nos.2 to 7 are daughters of Raghava and plaintiff No.1 has kept Raghava as

his concubine. But during the evidence, in cross-examination, the defendant did

not even identify the said Raghava who was present in the court hall, for the

reasons best known to him. This circumstance goes a long way in showing that

the defendant came up with a false and belated theory. The defendant admits

that his natural mother died while he was aged about 8 years and now his age

is 42 years. The specific contention of the plaintiff No.1 is that after the death of

his 1

st

wife, he married Raghava as his 2

nd

wife and he gave birth to six (06)

daughters through Raghava. P.W.1 narrated in the evidence that after the

demise of his 1

st

wife, he married Raghava and the said Raghava gave birth to

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

six (06) daughters through him, i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 7. P.W.2 also asserted

about the marriage of the said Raghava with plaintiff No.1. In the cross-

examination of P.W.1, it was elicited by the learned counsel for the defendant

that the defendant is his son through his 1

st

wife. P.W.1 also asserted in his

evidence that after the death of his 1

st

wife he married Raghava. It is not the

case of the defendant either in the pleadings or in the evidence that the said

Raghava was already married to another person and through him/1

st

husband,

plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 were born to her. P.W.1 specifically pleaded in the plaint as

well as in the evidence that he married Raghava after the death of his 1

st

wife

and plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 were born to him through his 2

nd

wife Raghava, by that

time the defendant was aged about 8 years. The father himself is admitting the

paternity of plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 in the plaint as well as in his evidence. For the

aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that plaintiff Nos.2 to 7

are born to Raghava through plaintiff No.1 and after the death of his 1st wife,

plaintiff No.1 married the said Raghava and through Raghava he gave birth to

plaintiff Nos.2 to 7.

19. The plaintiffs are seeking relief of partition of the plaint schedule property.

In the evidence itself, the defendant admits that both the properties were

purchased by his grandfather during his lifetime and he is no more. It is not the

case of either of the parties that the father of plaintiff No.1 died intestate.

20. The learned counsel for the appellant placed a case law in Balakrishnan

and others Vs. Selvi and others vide S.A.No.725 of 2001, wherein the High

Court of Madras held as follows:

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

“In any event, on the date of filing of the suit when the father is alive, the right

of illegitimate children seeking right over the fathers property or any other

persons property through her father is pre-mature. There is a difference in law

between right of legitimate and illegitimate children. That the difference is well

spoken and pointed out in Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”

In the present case, the scheduled property belongs to the father of

plaintiff No.1 and it was purchased by the father of plaintiff No.1, i.e., the

grandfather of plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 and the defendant, and he died. Therefore,

plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 and the defendant are entitled to one share on par with their

father/plaintiff No.1 in the ancestral property since it is not the self-acquired

property of the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 and defendant.

21. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed another case law in

Vasant Ramchandra Alias Chander Vs. Gurudas Vasantrao Yelvande and

others vide Civil Revision Application No.861 of 2014, wherein the High

Court of Bombay held as follows:

“The children of a void marriage, though are regarded as legitimate, such

children would not be entitled to any share in the properties, which are the

ancestral co-parcenary joint family properties of their father. Their right to claim

share remains limited only to the extent of the separate property of their father,

but, in that property, they cannot make any claim to it during the lifetime of their

father. Their rights in the separate properties of their father will accrue only on

the death of the father and that too, by way of succession.

In the present case, plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are not the illegitimate children of

plaintiff No.1. The father/plaintiff No.1 himself asserted in the plaint and also in

the evidence that plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are his children, born through his 2

nd

wife,

and after the death of his 1

st

wife he married Raghava as his 2

nd

wife. No

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

evidence was produced by the appellant to show that plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are

illegitimate children of plaintiff No.1.

22. The learned counsel for the appellant placed a case law of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh

2

. The ratio laid down in the

aforesaid case law is applicable to the suits filed for declaration of title and

recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.

23. The learned counsel for the appellant placed a case law in Rathnamma

& Ors. Vs. Sujathamma and Ors.

3

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as

follows:

“The burden to prove marriage was on the Plaintiff alone. The defendants have

denied marriage of the Plaintiff, therefore, the burden to prove marriage was on

the plaintiff alone. Apart from such fact, the marriage cannot be said to be

taken place in terms of Section 5(v) of the Act which is to the effect that the

parties are not sapindas to each other, unless the custom or usage governing

each of them permits of a marriage between the two.”

In the aforesaid case law, the plaintiff No.1 has pleaded about his 2

nd

marriage in the plaint itself. In the present case, the plaintiffs pleaded in the

plaint itself about the paternity of plaintiff Nos.2 to 7. In the plaint and in the

evidence, plaintiff No.1/P.W.1 asserted that at the age of 8 years of the

defendant, his 1

st

wife died and he married one Raghava as his 2

nd

wife and he

gave birth to plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 through Raghava. Moreover, P.W.2 also

asserted about the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Raghava and also the birth of

plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 to Raghava through plaintiff No.1.

2

2006 (5) SCC 558

3

(2019 ) 19 SCC 714

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

24. The learned counsel for the appellant placed a case law in Ram @

Ramdas Sheshrao Neharkar Vs. Sheshrao Babura Neharkar and others

4

.

The facts in the aforesaid case law are that the factum of marriage of the

mother of the appellant with respondent No.1 was not considered by the trial

Court as well as the First Appellate Court and there is a large scale of

discrepancies in the evidence led by the plaintiff. Whereas in the present case,

the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Raghava after the death of the 1

st

wife of

plaintiff No.1 is pleaded in the plaint itself and also narrated in the evidence

itself by P.W.1, which is well supported by P.W.2. Furthermore, to disprove the

evidence produced by the plaintiff, no evidence was produced by the defendant

to show that plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are illegitimate children of plaintiff No.1.

25. The learned counsel for the appellant placed a case law of the High

Court of Madras in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Hadeeja Ammal.

The ratio laid down in the said case law relates to cancellation of a sale

deed. In the present case, the relief of cancellation of the relinquishment deed

is not sought by the plaintiff and the said relinquishment deed is not even

produced by the defendant. Further, plaintiff No.1, who is alleged to have

relinquished his right in the properties himself, is not admitting the contents of

the relinquishment deed. He himself pleaded that he has not received any

amount as mentioned in the relinquishment deed and the defendant obtained

the relinquishment deed fraudulently from him. Therefore, it is for the defendant

to prove the alleged recitals in the alleged relinquishment deed. The alleged

4

2024 INSC Page 498

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

relinquishment deed is not even produced by the appellant and the recitals in

the relinquishment deed are not proved by the appellant.

26. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that in view of the

relinquishment deed executed by plaintiff No.1, the plaintiffs are not entitled to

seek the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. The appellant

admitted that both the suit schedule properties were purchased by his

grandfather during his lifetime and he is no more and he died intestate,

therefore, the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs

and the defendant. The specific case of the appellant is that plaintiff No.1

executed a relinquishment deed dated 16.03.1998 in favour of the defendant

after receiving an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards consideration. The contention

of plaintiff No.1 is that he has not received any amount as mentioned in the

alleged relinquishment deed and the said relinquishment deed was obtained

fraudulently by the defendant by obtaining his signatures on a paper. Therefore,

the burden is on the appellant to prove the same. Admittedly, the said

relinquishment deed was not even produced at all by the appellant before the

trial Court. As noticed supra, the plaint schedule properties are ancestral

properties of both the parties to the suit. Therefore, plaintiff Nos.2 to 7, who are

the children of Raghava and plaintiff No.1, are having equal shares along with

plaintiff No.1 and defendant in the plaint schedule property. Even if it is

assumed that the relinquishment deed is true, plaintiff No.1 can relinquish only

his undivided share in the schedule property. Moreover, the said relinquishment

deed was not produced by the appellant before the trial Court.

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

27. The learned counsel for the appellant placed a case law of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randir Singh & Ors

5

.

In the case at hand, the alleged relinquishment deed is not even

produced and also not marked as an exhibit. The recitals in the relinquishment

deed are disputed by the appellant from the beginning itself and he pleaded in

the plaint itself that by playing fraud, the defendant obtained a relinquishment

deed and the defendant did not pay any consideration of Rs.80,000/- as

mentioned in the alleged relinquishment deed. The ratio laid down in the

aforesaid case law is that “the sale deed cannot be cancelled except by the

order of a competent court”. Here, in the present case, the plaintiff has not

sought any relief of cancellation of the relinquishment deed and the very basis

of execution of the relinquishment deed itself is disputed by the appellant itself.

28. The learned counsel for the appellant placed case laws in Thota Ganga

Lakshmi & Another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others

6

,

Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Learned Counsel for

the respondent submits that. & Ors.

7

and Asset Reconstruction Company

(India) Limited Vs. S.P. Velayutham & Ors.

8

.

In the present case, the appellant pleaded that in view of the

relinquishment deed executed by his father, after receiving an amount of

Rs.80,000/-, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule

5

AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT Page 2807

6

(2010) 15 SCC Page 207

7

(2008) 4 SCC Page 594

8

2022 Supreme SC 397

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

property. Plaintiff No.1 disputed the contents of the said alleged relinquishment

deed. Plaintiff No.1 contended that he has not received any consideration of

Rs.80,000/- as mentioned in the relinquishment deed and the said

relinquishment deed was obtained by the defendant fraudulently and by way of

undue influence. Therefore, the burden is on the defendant to prove that, after

receiving an amount of Rs.80,000/-, plaintiff No.1 relinquished his right in the

plaint schedule properties. Moreover, the said relinquishment deed was not at

all produced by the defendant and the defendant did not even exhibit the said

relinquishment deed before the trial Court. As noticed supra, plaintiff No.1 is

having an undivided share of 1/8

th

share in the plaint schedule properties and

even if it is assumed that the said relinquishment deed is proved, he can

relinquish only his undivided share only in the plaint schedule property.

Moreover, the disputed relinquishment deed was not produced at all by the

appellant before the trial Court. For the aforesaid reasons, plaintiff Nos.2 to 7,

the defendant and respondent No.2 in the appeal proceedings, who is none

other than the daughter of plaintiff No.1 born through his 1

st

wife, are entitled to

equal shares in the plaint schedule property.

29. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that grant of preliminary

decree to respondent No.8, who came on record as a legatee under the

registered Will dated 18.03.2008, alleged to have been executed by deceased

plaintiff No.1, cannot be sustained without proving the Will as per Section 67 of

the Indian Evidence Act. Originally, plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 filed a suit for seeking

the relief of partition of plaint schedule properties into eight (08) equal shares

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

and to allot one such share each to plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 and to the defendant.

The trial court, after completion of trial, dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved by

the said decree and judgment, the plaintiffs in the said suit filed the first appeal.

The first appeal is a continuation of suit proceedings. During the pendency of

the first appeal, plaintiff No.1 died and respondent No.8, i.e., the 2

nd

wife of

plaintiff No.1, came on record by producing the original registered Will executed

by respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.8 before the First Appellate

Court and on hearing both sides, the said I.A.No.2033 of 2011 was allowed by

the First Appellate Court vide its order dated 30.09.2011. Consequently,

respondent No.8 has come on record in the place of respondent No.1. The

appellant has not challenged the said orders passed in I.A.No.2033 of 2011 of

the First Appellate Court. Having accepted the said finding of the First Appellate

Court, now during the pendency of the second appeal, at the stage of

arguments, the oral contentions of the appellant that without proving the Will as

per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, respondent No.8 came on record

and that she is not entitled to any share cannot be taken into consideration. In

the grounds of appeal, it was not pleaded by the appellant that without proving

the Will, respondent No.8/2

nd

wife of plaintiff came on record and that she is not

entitled to any share in the plaint schedule property. The First Appellate Court,

by giving reasons, allotted the share of respondent No.1 to respondent No.8,

who being the 2

nd

wife of respondent No.1.

30. The finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court were based on

proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was

VGKR, J.

SA_817_2012

neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do

not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is

a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100

of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even

pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law.

31. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission,

confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

__________________________

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

Date: 15.06.2026

SRT