■ }• APHC010826742015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI r WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 1146 OF 2018 Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C, questioning the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No. 181/2009 dt.26-03-2015 on the file of the court of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.72/2000 dt.30-12-2008 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, E.G.District, A.P. Between: Panja satyanarayana, S/o.Nageswara Rao Hindu, aged 41 years, Occ;Cultivation, R/o.Khandaravalli Village,Achanta mandal. West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh ...Appellant/Appellants No.2/Defendant No.2 AND Panja Suryakantham (died) 1. 2. Damisetti Adinarayana, S/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 41 years, OcciCultivation, R/o.Pulletikurru Village, Ambajipeta Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh ...Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs 3. Panja Nageswara Rao,S/o.Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged 96 years OcciCultivation, R/o.Khandaravalli Village Achanta Mandal, E.G.District, AP 4. Panja Laxmi Narayana, S/o.Nageswara Rao Hindu, aged 35 years, Occ:Cultivation, R/o.Khandaravalli Village Achanta Mandal, W.G.District Andhra Pradesh 5. Panja Krishna Occ.Cultivation, R/o W.G.DistrictAndhra Pradesh S/o. Nageswara Rao Hindu, aged 28 Khandaravalli Village Achanta Mandal, years. 6. Panja Ammiraju (died) 7. Panja Adinarayana S/o.Ammiraju Hindu, aged 25 years, OceiCultivation, R/o. Khandaravalli Village Achanta Mandal, W.G.District Andhra Pradesh 8. Panja Suryanarayana S/o.Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged 52 OcciCultivation, R/o.Khandaravalli Village Achanta Mandal, W.G.District Andhra Pradesh years 9. Panja Dharma Sekhar, S/o.Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 35 OcciCultivation, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh years. Village, Achanta Mandal, R/o.Khandaravalli 10. Panja Surendra Nath @ Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana Hindu, aged 32 years, Occ:Cultivation, R/o.Khandaravalli Village, Achanta Mandal, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh Panja Veeramma, W/o.Late Ammiraju, Hindu, aged 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Khandaravalli Village, , Achanta Mandal, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh 11. 12. Panja Adinarayana, S/o.Ammirajju Hindu, aged 35 years, Occ:Cultivation, R/o.Khandaravalli Village, Achanta Mandal, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh 13. Gandham Saikumari, W/o.Satayanarayana Hindu, aged 40 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o.Khandaravalli Village Achanta Mandal, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh 14. Nalla Nagaveni, W/o.Peddiraju, Hindu, aged 38 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.Khandaravalli Village, Achanta Mandal, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh 15. Gandham Venkayamma, W/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 32 years, R/o.Khandaravalli Village, Achanta Mandal, Occ:Housewife, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent IA NO: 4 OF 2015fSAMP 40837 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.72/2000 dt.30-12-2008 passed by the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram as confirmed in A.S.No.181/2009 dt.26-03-2015 by the court of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram pending disposal of the above appeal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Turaga Sai Surya Counsel for the Respondent: Sri N Siva Reddy The Court made the following Order: VGKR, J. sa 1146 2018 1 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.1146 of 2018 Judgment: This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 26-3-2015 in A.S.No.181 of 2009 on the file of learned II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30-12-2008 in O.S.No.72 of 2000 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. 2. The appellant herein is the 2"'* defendant, respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondents 3 to 15 are defendants 1 and 3 to 15 in O S.No.72 of 2000 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. 3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.72 of 2000 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, with a prayer for seeking declaration of title of the plaintiff over plaint-A schedule properties and to eject the defendants therefrom to deliver possession to the plaintiffs and to order accounting of profits from piaint-A schedule properties from 01-01-1991'till possession was delivered. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died on 23-3-2001 and the 2^*^ plaintiff was added as per orders in I.A.No.427/2001, dated 08-3-2004, as legal heir of the deceased 1®* plaintiff. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 2"*^ defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal. 2 VGKR, J. sa 1146 2018 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.No.72 of 2000, is as follows: (a) It is pleaded that items 1 to 4 in plaint-A schedule properties are stridhana properties of the 1®* plaintiff, the remaining property was inherited by her from her husband as she is the sole legal heir of her husband, who died on 01-01-1991 intestate. They have no issues. The mother-in-law of the 1®* plaintiff was pre-deceased to her son, as such the 1®‘ plaintiff is the sole legal heir of the properties of her husband, (b) It is further pleaded that the 1®‘ defendant is the father of defendants 2 to 4, defendants 1, 5 and 7 are the brothers of 1®‘ plaintiffs husband Lakshmi Narayana, the 5**^ defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were brought on record. While things stood thus, Lakshmi Narayana and his brothers, who are defendants 1, 5 and 7, partitioned their joint family properties, each brother got his separate share and Lakshmi Narayana used to cultivate the properties fell to his share and he took the assistance of defendants 1 to 4. (c) It is further pleaded that after the death of Lakshmi Narayana, the defendants 1 to 4 continued in the management of properties and paid bare maintenance to the 1®‘ plaintiff over plaint-A schedule properties. She had been demanding to deliver possession of the properties and she lost her confidence on All the defendants were colluded each other to put the 1®‘ plaintiff in trouble and to had their unlawful gain, a legal notice to the defendants 1 to 4 on 18-3-1995, the defendants did not give any reply and she was not paid with profits after the death of her husband. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. the defendants. Hence, she got issued VGKRJ. sa_1146_2018 7. Originally, the 1®* plaintiff filed the suit in pro forma pauperis in O.P.No.16 of 1996 on 17-02-2000. The trial Court directed her to pay Court fee within one month from the date of order. Subsequently, she paid Court fee and it was registered as O.S.No.72 of 2000 and posted for filing of written statement and further proceedings. 3 8. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 2^^^ defendant, which was adopted by the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 to 13, are as follows: (a) It is denied that plaint-A schedule properties are the absolute properties of the 1®* plaintiff. The relationship between the parties is admitted. It is contended that the plaint schedules are incorrectly mentioned. The pattadar pass book was not issued in favour of the 1®* plaintiff. Item Nos.7 to 12, 14 and 15 of the plaint-A schedule properties are ancestral properties of Panja Lakshmi Narayana, husband of 1®‘ plaintiff got by him under a family partition. Item Nos.6 and 13 are purchased by him but the extent of item No. 13 is only Ac.0-01 cent but not Ac.0-10 cents, (b) It is further contended that the 1®‘ plaintiff and her husband have no issues, as such they fostered the 2’'^ defendant from his childhood. During the life time of Panja Lakshmi Narayana, he used to take the assistance of defendants 1 to 4 in cultivation. On his death, they continued in possession of the same and they started realizing the income or profits from plaint-A schedule properties and they are paying to her and they denied that the defendants did not furnish accounts over the properties, (c) It is further contended that Panja Lakshmi Narayana, husband of the plaintiff, during his life time executed a Will on 20-9-1990 while he was in a sound and disposing state of mind in favour of Panja Satyanarayana, who is the ^ 2'^'^ defendant in the suit and the properties were bequeathed to as a fostered son and the execution of the Will is known to the 1®‘ plaintiff. She got issued a legal 4 VGKR, J. sa_1146_2018 notice with false and incorrect allegations. The suit is not maintainable and finally prayed the Court to dismiss the suit as there are no merits or bona tides. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his rights in A schedule property and eviction of defendants and for possession of the same ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for accounting profits from 01-01-1991 till the date of suit as prayed- for ? (3) Whether the A schedule properties are the absolute properties of the plaintiff ? (4) Whether the names of defendants are correct ? (5) Whether the husband of the plaintiff constructed a daba house in item No.14 ? nd (6) Whether the 2 defendant is the foster son of plaintiff and her husband? (7) Whether the 2"^ defendant constructed a daba house in item No.14 ? (8) Whether the 2"'^ defendant attended the funeral obsequies of the plaintiffs husband ? (9) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of items as contended by the defendants in the written statement ? and (10) To what relief ? 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-land A-2 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 t o 8 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. 11. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.181 of 2009 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, wherein, the following point came up for consideration. VGKR, J. sa 1146 2018 5 Whether the appeal suit can be allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by trial court by allowing the appeal ? 12. The learned il Additional District Judge, Amalapuram appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the point, as above, against the defendants/appellants and in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the defendants. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 2""^ defendant in O.S.No.72 of 2000 filed the present second appeal before this Court. i.e., the first 13. After the institution of second appeal by the 2"'^ defendant in the suit, this Court ordered notice to the respondents before admission and the said notice was served on the respondents. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs 1 and 2. 14. 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 Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “CPC") could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial question of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and 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. 15. In the case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Angela Laxmi\ the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely. ■ (2007) 8 see 155 VGKRJ. sa_1146_2018 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. 16. The 2"^' defendant having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of CPC, it is for him to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 6 17. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any substantial question of law. The contention of the appellant is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 18. The undisputed facts are that one Panja Lakshmi Narayana and the 1®‘ plaintiff/Panja Surya Kantham are the husband and wife and they are the residents of Kandaravalli Village in Achanta Mandal of West Godavari District and plaint-A schedule properties belonged to them and they have no issues. It is also admitted fact by both the parties that the said Lakshmi Narayana had three brothers viz., defendants 1, 5 and 7 in the present suit. Item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint-A schedule properties are stridhana properties of Surya Kantham i.e., the 1®‘ plaintiff in the suit and item Nos.3 to 5 of plaint-A schedule properties stood in the name of 1®‘ plaintiff. It is also admitted fact by the defendants that the <■ VGKR, J. sa 1146 2018 7 defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of 1®* defendant, and the 5*^ defendant, who is one of the brothers of 1 St The 6“^ defendant is the defendant, died. 5**^ defendant’s son, defendants 10 to 14 are also legal heirs of the 5'^ defendant and the 7*^ defendant is the brother of 1®‘ defendant, defendant and Panja Lakshmi Narayana. It is the specific contention of the 2^'^ plaintiff that during the life time of Surya Kantham, the sole plaintiff, she executed a Will while she was in a sound and disposing state of mind on 05-3-2001 under Ex.A-1 bequeathing her stridhana properties and also the properties inherited from her husband. Whereas the contention of the 2"'^ defendant is that the remaining defendants are nothing to do with the properties and the 2"^ defendant is in actual physical possession of item Nos.3 to 5 of plaint-A schedule properties by virtue of the Will said to have been executed by Panja Lakshmi Narayana under Ex.B-1, dated 20-9-1990. nd Another contention put-forth by the' 2 defendant is that Panja Lakshmi Narayana and Surya Kantham have no children as such the 2^"^ defendant, who is none other than the 1®* defendant’s son, was fostered by Lakshmi Narayana and bequeathed the properties while Lakshmi Narayana was in a sound and disposing state of mind, executed a Will dated 20-9-1990 in favour of the 2"^ defendant. 19. The claim of the defendant is based on Ex.B-1 Will, dated 20-9-1990, said to have been executed by Lakshmi Narayana on 01-9-1991. It is also the specific contention of 2”^^ defendant that he is in possession and enjoyment of item No.5 to 15 of plaint-A schedule properties with absolute rights since the date of alleged Will, dated 01-9-1991. It is undisputed that Ex.B-1 is an unregistered Will dated 20-9-1990. To prove the alleged Will, the 2"'^ defendant relied on the evidence of attestors to Ex.B-1 i.e. D.Ws.2 and 3. The 2"*^ defendant is propounder of the Will. Since the plaintiff is disputing Ex.B-1 unregistered Will, therefore, it is for the propounder of the Will to prove the same by producing cogent and reliable evidence and he is also supposed to 8 VGKRJ. ■ sa_1146_2018 prove the Will in accordance with law. No doubt, the plaintiff approached the court for seeking a relief of declaration of title and also schedule properties. Admittedly, the 1®' plaintiff, civil possession over the plaint who instituted the suit, is none other than the wife of Panja Lakshmi Narayana who died by leaving the 1"‘ plaintiff herein and the plaintiff herein filed the the wife i.e,, suit for seeking relief of declaration of title and consequently recovery of possession over the plaint schedule properties. The appellant contended that during the life time of the plaintiff’s husband Lakshmi Narayana, he executed an unregistered Will in a sound and disposing state of mind in the year 1990. 20. D.W.2 is one of the attestors to Ex.B-1 alleged Will, evidence of D.W.2, by the time he went to the house of already scribed. He further admitted that by the time he reached scribe, Panja Lakshmi Narayana got scribed Ex.B-1 Will and Lakshmi put his signature on Ex.B-1 and he alone signed on Ex.B-1 Will and he signed Ex.B-1 without reading the contents of Ex.B-1 and he does As per the scribe, the Will was the house of Narayana on not know the contents of Ex.B-1 and he did not enquire the scribe or Lakshmi Narayana about the contents of Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-1 Will was handed 2'''^ defendant herein. As stated over to Panja Satyanarayana/ supra, the 2'^^ defendant is propounder of the Will. The own evidence of D.W.2 itself goes to show that the propounder of the Will actively participated in scribing the Will and in the presence of D.W.2, the alleged Will was not scribed by the scribe of Will. The own admission of D.W.2 scribe, the entire clearly goes to show that by the time he visited the house of Will was scribed. Another attestor to Will, D.W.3 admitted in his evidence that Panja Lakshmi Narayana did not make any arrangement regarding his properties and Lakshmi Narayana had not adopted the 2"'* defendant and the 2 nd defendant Lakshmi defendant but in the The own admissions of used to reside as a son of the 1®* defendant. He further admitted that Narayana intended to make nd arrangement to the 2 meanwhile he died without executing any document. 9 VGKR, J. sa_1146_2018 D,Ws.2 and 3 are not supporting the case of 2'"'^ defendant about the execution of alleged Ex.B-1 Will by late Lakshmi Narayana, The execution of Ex.B-1 Will is not at all proved by the 2"^^ defendant. Even though the propounder of Will relied alleged Will, the evidence of D.Ws.2 on the evidence of two attestors to Ex.B-1 and 3 is not inspiring confidence and even as per the evidence of D.W.2, the propounder of Will took active role in preparing Ex.B-1 Will. 21. As per the case of 2"^ defendant, an unregistered Will dated 20-9-1990 was executed by Lakshmi Narayana by bequeathing the entire plaint schedule properties in the presence of D.Ws.2 and 3. As stated supra, the evidence of prove Ex.B-1 Will. Furthermore, date of D.Ws.2 and 3 is not inspiring confidence to Lakshmi Narayana died on 01-01-1991 within four months from the Therefore, Ex.B-1 i alleged Ex.B-1. IS surrounded by several suspicious circumstances. The propounder of the Will failed to remove the said suspicious The suit was filed by the case of both the parties that Panja circumstances by producing cogent evidence. 1"‘.plaintiff in the year 2000. It is admitted Lakshmi Narayana died on 01-01-1991. of the 2 There is no evidence on behalf nd defendant to show that the alleged Ex.B-1 The 2"^ defendant, in order to prove the alleged schedule properties Will is acted upon. possession over the plaint no Revenue record is filed to show as a legatee under Ex,B-1 Will he is In possession over the plaint schedule properties. Therefore, it is evident that the 2"“ defendant failed to prove the alleged Ex.B-1 Will. As per the own admissions of 2^^ defendant, original owner of the plaint schedule properties i.e. item Nos.3 to 15 of plaint-A schedule Narayana, who is properties is Panja Lakshmi none other than the husband of sole plaintiff. The sole plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of title and filed a civil suit for possession of plaint-A schedule properties recovery of 22. For the aforesaid ^ reasons, I am of the considered view that the 1" plaintiff Is having absolute rights in the plaint-A schedule properties and item 10 VGKR, J. sa_1146_2018 Nos.1 and 2 of plaint-A schedule properties are stridhana properties of the 1 plaintiff and the remaining properties in plaint-A schedule properties were inherited from her husband as she is the sole legal heir of her husband, who died on 01-01-1991 as intestate. 23. During the pendency of the suit, upon the death of the sole plaintiff, the 2""' plaintiff was brought on record as per orders in I.A.No.427/2001, dated 08-3-2004. The 1®' plaintiff died testate and she executed Ex.A-1 Will, dated 05-3-2001, in favour of the 2""' plaintiff. To substantiate the said Will, the 2 ^ plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and he also examined attestor to the Will and scribe of Will as P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.3 is the 1®* attestor to Ex.B-1 Will said to have been executed by the 1®* plaintiff Panja Surya Kantham, dated 05-3-2001. P.W.3, an attestor to the alleged Will, deposed in his evidence that the testatrix was in a sound and disposing state of mind on the date of execution of Ex.A-1 Will. P.W.4 is the scribe of Ex.A-1 Will. His evidence also proved about the execution of Ex.A-1 Will by the 1"‘ plaintiff in favour of the 2'^'^ plaintiff. By examining one of the attestors and scribe of the Will, the 2"'* plaintiff established Ex.A-1 Will said to have been executed by the 1®* plaintiff. Nothing was produced by the 2"^ defendant to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4. Furthermore, D.W.1 i.e. the 2^^ defendant admitted in his evidence that the 1"‘ defendant i.e. his father, defendants 3 and 4 are nothing to do with the plaint-A schedule properties. The claim of the 2'"'^ defendant is that he got right by virtue of the unregistered Will Ex.B-1 said to have been executed by the 1®^ plaintiff’s husband. As stated supra, the alleged Ex.B-1 Will is not at all proved by the 2""* defendant. Though the 2"^^ defendant relied on the evidence of two attestors D.Ws.2 and 3, their evidence is not inspiring confidence to prove Ex.B-1 Will. One of the attestors admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that the propounder of the Will/2'^'^ defendant actively participated in preparing the Will and by the time he reached the house of the scribe, entire 11 VGKRJ. sa_1146_2018 preparation of Ex.B-1 Will was completed. Even as per the own admissions of attestor D.W.3, he was not present at the time of alleged Will and Lakshmi Narayana did not execute any Will in favour of the 2"^^ defendant. 24. The learned Senior Counsel for appellant would contend that item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint-A schedule properties are situated in East Godavari District, whereas the other properties are situated within the jurisdiction of West Godavari District and item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint-A schedule properties are included in the plaint-A schedule properties to create the jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge’s Court. Amalapuram in East Godavari District. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would contend that to avoid future complications, the 1®* plaintiff herself invited to file the suit for declaration relief of all her total properties. Therefore, the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Amalapuram is having jurisdiction to try the suit. 25. It is undisputed that the suit schedule property comprises item Nos.1 to 15 of plaint-A schedule properties and part of plaint-A schedule properties is situated within the jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Amalapuram. Therefore, in view of Section 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, the suit is maintainable in Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Amalapuram. The learned trial Judge framed relevant issue on territorial jurisdiction, by giving cogent reasons in the judgment and answered the issue that the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Amalapuram is having jurisdiction to try the suit and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned first appellate Judge also held that the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Amalapuram is having jurisdiction to try the suit. Both the Courts below gave concurrent finding that the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Amalapuram is having jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in giving the said concurrent finding given by both the Courts below. V 12 VGKRJ. sa_1146_2018 26. The trial Court, on appreciation of the entire evidence, gave germane reasons that the 1®* plaintiff proved the right and title in the plaint-A schedule properties and the 2'^'^ plaintiff as a legatee under Ex.A-1 got absolute rights plaint-A schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs proved their right and title in plaint-A schedule properties and both the Courts below over gave a concurrent finding that the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Amalapuram is having jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaintiffs are having absolute right and title over plaint-A schedule properties. 27. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/ points in favour of the plaintiffs and against the 2"^^ defendant do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was 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 CPC. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 28. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and when substantial question of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. KakF. In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the are no ^ AIR 2006 SC 1975 VGKRJ. sa 1146_2018 13 pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of CPC. 29. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgments and decrees of both the trial Court and the first appellate Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs in the second appeal. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Additional District Judge, Amaiapuram, East Godavari 1. The II District.{records if any) 2. The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Amaiapuram, East Godavari District 3. One CC to Sri. Turaga Sai Surya Advocate [OPUC] Sri. N Siva Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 4. OneCCto 6. Two CD Copies Stu vna 4 HIGH COURT DATED:08/10/2025 JUDGMENT 13 OCT 2025 m) SA NO. 1146 OF 2018 Co '^S4JurrentSectiojixV^ DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION