A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC must raise substantial questions of law; the appeal is dismissed if lower court findings are not perverse or illegal.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 22.08.2022 in A.S.No.6 of 2014, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 13.03.2014 in O.S.No.170 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.170 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.170 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, with a prayer for partition of the plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares and for allotment of 2/3^rd share i.e., 1/3^rd share to the 1^st plaintiff and 1/3^rd share to the 2^nd plaintiff in the plaint schedule property and for possession of the separate share to the plaintiffs after due division and for making provision in the decree for ascertaining of future profits on a separate petition and for costs.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, decreed the suit preliminarily with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.6 of 2014, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. The learned First Appellate Judge dismissed the first appeal by confirming 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 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.170 of 2006, is as follows:

The 1^st plaintiff is younger sister to the 2^nd plaintiff and the defendant is elder sister to the plaintiffs. The plaint schedule property is dry land for an extent of Ac.2-05 cents situated at Pedagummaluru village of S. Rayavaram Mandal, which is self-acquired property of mother of the plaintiffs and defendant by name Sagiraju Venkata Ramanamma. The mother of plaintiffs and defendant purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 24.02.1982 from Yezarla Buchi Venkatapathi Raju and others for valuable consideration. Ever since from the date of purchase, the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights by raising cashew nut tope in it. The mother of plaintiffs and defendant died in the year 2000 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant as her legal heirs. The father of plaintiffs and defendant died prior to the death of their mother. Since the 2^nd plaintiff is being residing in different states on his job and the 1^st plaintiff is being residing at Tuni, the defendant is being residing in Pedagummuluru Village, where the plaint schedule property is situated and also as the defendant is elder sister used to manage the plaint schedule property on behalf of the plaintiffs and also used to give usufruct derived from the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs till 2005 of their respective shares. The 2^nd plaintiff when asked the defendant for payment of usufruct of the plaint schedule property for the year 2006, the defendant did not pay the same and went on quarrel with the 2^nd plaintiff. Due to the said quarrel, the plaintiffs are not willing to keep the plaint schedule property jointly with the defendant. The plaintiffs when asked the defendant for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares for which the 1^st plaintiff is entitled 1/3^rd share; 2^nd defendant is entitled 1/3^rd share and the defendant is entitled 1/3^rd share, the defendant without partitioning the schedule property, postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Then the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice, dated 21.06.2006 to the defendant demanding for partition of the plaint schedule proper