A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC can only be admitted if substantial questions of law arise; in this case, no such questions were found.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short ) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 22.03.2022 in A.S.No.15 of 2016, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 25.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.187 of 2007, by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur (“trial Court” for short).

2. The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.4 & 5; 1^st respondent herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.187 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.187 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, with a prayer for the division of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and for costs.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the above said suit filed A.S.No.15 of 2016, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit 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 plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.187 of 2007, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property is joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The 1^st defendant is father of plaintiff and 2^nd defendant is brother of plaintiff and all are constituted as Hindu joint family. In the month of February, 2005, there were some misunderstandings in between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. After that the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 created false documents in respect of the plaint schedule property by colluding with the 3^rd defendant only to evade legitimate 1/3^rd share of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed nominal register sale deed in favour of 3^rd defendant in the month of June, 2005 and in that document plaintiff is not a party. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are trying to create sham and nominal documents in favour of third parties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed a nominal registered sale deeds in favour of 3^rd defendant in the month of June, 2005, in which the plaintiff is not a party. During the course of pendency of the suit, the 3^rd defendant sold the plaint schedule property to defendant Nos.4 and 5. Then, the plaintiff added them as defendant Nos.4 and 5 as per orders in I.A.No.282/2007, dated20.03.2012. Therefore, she is constrained to file the suit for partition.

7. The 1^st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by 2^nd defendant and contended as follows:he defendant Nos.1 and 2 admitted the relationship with the plaintiff.They contended that they performed the marriage of plaintiff on 06.04.1986. At the time of marriage, they presented 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff executed a relinquishment deed by relinquishing her right in the plaint schedule property as such the plaintiff has no right to file the suit for the relief of partition.

8. The 3^rd defendant remained ex parte

9. The 4th defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by 5^th by denying the pleadings in the plaint and contended as follows:

They purchased the plaint schedule property on 15.11.2007 under a registered sale deed from 3^rd defendant for valid sale consideration of Rs.4,42,000/- and inducted into possession and