A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC requires substantial questions of law; mere disagreements with lower court findings do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023 in A.S.No.58 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chittoor, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 11.09.2023 in O.S.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2. The appellant herein is the 7^th defendant and the 1^st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 6 & 8 to 13 herein are the defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 13 in O.S.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. It is to be noted here that during the pendency of the first appeal, the 2^nd respondent therein died and the respondents 14 to 18 are added as legal heirs of the deceased 2^nd respondent.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, with a prayer for division of item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties and to allot 1/16^th share to the 1^st plaintiff and 5/16^th share to the 2^nd plaintiff and to put separate possession of the same and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 5 and 6 from in any way making constructions over item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the 7^th defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.58 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chittoor. The learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 7^th defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the 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.37 of 2021, is as follows:

The 1^st plaintiff is the wife and 2^nd plaintiff is daughter of late A.R.Lakshmaiah Naidu, who died in the year 1979. The said Lakshmaiah Naidu died intestate leaving behind him, the plaintiffs and his two sons i.e., defendants 1 and 2 as an undivided members of joint family. Lakshmaiah Naid was the son of one Late Ambula Ramaiah Naidu, who died in the year 1934. The Ramaiah Naidu had two daughters, who were married and are not alive now. The said two daughters viz., Narasamma and Rajamma are not entitled to any share in any property as they died in 1934 much before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act , 1956. The said Lakshmaiah Naidu was the manager of the family and he was living with his late father Ramaiah Naidu and was in joint possession and enjoyment of all the property of the family members, who are defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs. The 2^nd plaintiff is an unmarried daughter and she is also entitled to an equal share along with defendants 1 and 2 as per amended Hindu Succession Act . Late Ramaiah Naidu who was the ancestor, purchased item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property from one Murugeshan under a registered sale deed, dated 24.05.1927 and was in possession of the same along with his son Lakshmaiah Naidu. The 1^st plaintiff with joint family funds constructed a thatched hut on the eastern side of the above site, which is described as item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The 7^th defendant approached the 1^st plaintiff to lease out the said thatched hut on a monthly rent of Rs.45/- for running a hotel business in or about the year 1977 or so. Since then the 7^th defendant is running a hotel under the name and style of “Kumari Bhavan” and was regularly paying the rents. Lakshmaiah Naidu, who was manager of joint Hindu Family purchased item No.3 of the plaint schedule property from Munirathnamaiah with joint family funds under a registered sale deed, dated 24.04.1941 and was in possession of the same. After his death, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were in joint