A Second Appeal lacks merit if it raises factual disputes already resolved by lower courts and does not present a substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri K. Bhuchi Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/appellant/plaintiff, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant/ appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2024 in A.S.No.157 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Karimnagar (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’) confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2018 in O.S.No.2 of 2008 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, a suit filed seeking partition and separate possession has been dismissed i.e. the First appeal is also dismissed confirming dismissal of the suit.

3. The appellant herein filed suit in O.S.No.2 of 2008 before the Trial Court seeking partition and allotment of 1/7th share in the suit schedule property consisting of Plaint Schedule ‘A’ lands consisting of land to an extent of Ac.1.13 Gts. in Sy.No.36, Ac.0.36 Gts. in Sy.No.52, Ac.1.36 Gts in Sy.No.60, Ac.4.01 Gt. in Sy.No.156, Ac.2.02 Gts. in Sy.No.157, Ac.5.15 Gts. in Sy.No.168, Ac.1.04 Gts. in Sy.No.276/A, Ac.3.00 Gts. in Sy.No.290/A and Ac.5.18 Gts. in Sy.No.310; Plaint Schedule ‘B’ property consisting of Ac.0.08 Gts. in H.No.3-24 situated at Tekkurthi village of Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. The appellant pleaded that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are his brothers, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are the sisters, and respondent No.7 is the purchaser of one of the item in Schedule ‘A’ property. The appellant pleaded that the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of himself and respondent Nos.1 to 6 and all are entitled to equal share, himself being entitled to 1/7^th share. The appellant worked in Postal Department at various places during his service wherever he was posted and after retirement, he came back to the native village and intended to live in the suit schedule ‘B’ house, for which, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 objected. The appellant demanded for partition of schedule ‘A’ properties into seven equal shares and for allotment of one share to him and one share each to respondent Nos.1 to 6. However, such a partition was postponed. Thereafter, the appellant met with an accident and his right leg was seriously damaged and he was bed ridden for six months. Taking advantage of the physical disablement of the appellant, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 alienated Item No.1 of schedule ‘A’ property to respondent No.7. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are mismanaging the schedule properties and vexed with their attitude, the appellant got legal notice issued and when respondent Nos.1 to 3 refused for partition through reply notice, the suit for partition has been filed.

4. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed written statement opposing the suit claim primarily on the ground that the entire suit schedule properties were originally owned by their father Late Aluguvelly Narsimha Reddy, that partition took place during his lifetime in the year 1972 and that the family arrangement has been reduced into writing. In the year 1980, there was partition with allotment of land to an extent of Ac.1.03 Gts. in Sy.No.36 to the appellant. The appellant sold said property to respondent No.7's father Ramaswamy 30 years ago and the respondent No.7's father was in possession of said property. The allegation about respondent Nos.1 to 3 selling the property to the father of respondent No.7 is devoid of truth. The appellant has suppressed material facts, more particularly sale of Item No.1 property by the appellant himself to fat