The plaintiff is the appellant in Second Appeal and the defendants 1 to 10 are the respondents and out of said defendants, from death of the defendants 2 & 9, the legal representatives came on record as the respondents 10 to 13 and respondent No.14 respectively as per the orders dated 11.06.2008 in S.A.M.P.No.1550 of 2007 and 11.10.2017 in S.A.M.P.No.2203 of 2017. The Second Appeal is maintained against the concurrent findings of the Courts below by saying it involves the substantial question of law and the said concurrent findings are perverse and unsustainable and contrary to law. The Second Appeal was admitted originally on 21.11.2003 showing the substantial questions of law raised in the grounds 1 to 4, though as contemplated by Section 100 CPC the Court has to formulate the substantial question of law from reading of the material and after hearing the appellant, if any, or relied upon any ground mentioned in the appeal as if the substantial question of law for maintainability of the Second Appeal arising of the substantial question of law no doubt mandatory for the appellant, and the scope of the formulation of substantial question of law by the Court therefrom is thus different. Thereby, this Court formulated on 27.04.2018 from involvement of the substantial questions of law as under:

1. Whether the trial Court was in error in dismissing the suit instead of return of the plaint having found the plaintiff under valued the suit, with reference to the sale deed of 1989 relied on by the defendants to show the same for placing reliance instead of directing the plaintiff for not an functo-officio to deliver of the judgment, atleast invoking Order VII Rule 11 clause (b) and (c) C.P.C. read with 11 of the A.P. Courts Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 and the impugnment of the same by the plaintiff in the appeal attacking the whole judgment and confirmation of the same by the lower appellate Court is correct?

2. Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below in this regard and otherwise on appreciation of fact and law are perverse or unsustainable and requires interference?

3. To what result?

2. Heard both sides at length and perused the material on record. The factual background necessary to mention is that for a total extent of Ac.11.92 cents there was a joint patta granted in the year 1958 by Survey and Settlement authorities under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act for each 1/3rd in favour of three persons viz., Nuthalapati Abbayi Naidu @ Munaswamy Naidu for 1/3rd, Muppala Nagamma Naidu for 1/3rd and Muppala Seshama Naidu for 1/3rd. Said Abbayi Naidu @ Munaswamy Naidu had three brothers and of whom he was the eldest in their family after their late father and he acted as family manager thereby and patta was granted for that 1/3rd share on behalf of their joint family according to the claim in favour of said Abbayi Naidu since family manager for the benefit of himself and his three brothers and that the co brothers thereby got equal shares in the 1/3rd of 11.92 cents in Survey No.5 comes to Ac.3.97 cents viz., Abbayi Naidu @ Munaswamy Naidu entitled to 1/4th out of said 3.97 cents for the benefit of himself and his sons late Kuppa Naidu who left behind two sons N.Bhaskara Naidu-defendant No.3 and N.Muniratnam Naidu-defendant No.4 and Abbayi Naidu’s another son N.Ellappa Naidu-defendant No.1, another son N.A.Chengammma Naidu-defendant No.2 and another son Munaswamy Naidu-plaintiff. It is to say the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 of whom defendants 3 & 4 are sons of late Kuppa Naidu, the brother of plaintiff, defendant 1 & 2, who are sons of Abbayi Naidu got 1/4th out of Ac.3.97 cents supra and Abbayi Naidu’s other three brothers each got 1/4th of Ac.3.97 cents viz. Gurrappa Naidu (brother of Abbayi Naidu) whose wife Nallakka @ Muniyamma, who are issue less and adopted defendant No.1, one of the sons of Abbayi Naidu, and thereby, Nallakka and Ellappa Naidu together sold away their 1/4th share out of Ac.3.97 cen