V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 101/1987 dated 27-03-1995 on the file of the Additional District, Judge, Tirupathi confirming the judgment and decree in o. S. No. 695/1980 dated 15-06-1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, tirupathi in dismissing the suit. For the sake of clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. ( 2 ) THE 1st defendant - Gadiyaram venkata Ratnam is the father of the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 5 are the brothers of the plaintiff and all are sons of the 1st defendant. The 6th defendant rayadurgam Sambiah is the decreeholder of O. S. No. 646/1971. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 7 to 10. The 11th defendant namely, Smt. Parameswaramma is the sister of the 6th defendant. During the pendency of the First Appeal, the 6th defendant died and , his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 14 to 18. The 1st defendant - gadiyaram Venkata Ratnam also died during the pendency of the First Appeal and his legal heir was brought on record as defendant No. 19. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 646/1971 on the file of the i Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi, as decreed in A. S. No. 35/1975 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Tirupathi as confirmed in S. A. No. 389/1978 on the file of this Court is collusive, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff and to consequently restrain the defendant No. 6 from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff as a Manager of the joint family and accord the relief of partition and separate possession of the plaintiff s 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is situated at chittoor District, Chandragiri Taluk, thondavada village accounts, Thambakalva sy. No. 237/4-A an extent of 0. 89, sy. No. 239/4-A - dry an extent of Ac. 1-84 cents, Sy. No. 241/4-B-dry an extent of 0-47 cents, total extent Ac. 3-20 cents in this only an extent of Ac. 1-96 cents. The plaint schedule property is situated at chittoor District, Chandragiri Taluk, thondavada village accounts, Thambakalva sy. No. 237/4-A an extent of 0. 89, sy. No. 239/4-A - dry an extent of Ac. 1-84 cents, Sy. No. 241/4-B-dry an extent of 0-47 cents, total extent Ac. 3-20 cents in this only an extent of Ac. 1-96 cents. The plaintiff s case is that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the 1st defendant cultivated the habit of leading a wayward life and was not taking care of family welfare and neglected the family and the 1st defendant was living with the 2nd defendant in their native village and the plaintiff alone was managing the affairs as a Manager of the joint family and he is in possession of the plaint schedule properties and while so on 02-12-1980 the plaintiff came to know that the 6th defendant obtained a collusive and fraudulent decree against the first defendant and others in O. S. No. 646/1971 (Ex. A-9) which was confirmed in A. S. No. 35/1975 and also in S. A. No. 389/1978 and though the plaintiff is the manager of the joint family he was not impleaded as a party to Ex. A-9 suit proceedings and the 1st defendant colluded with the plaintiff in 0-S. No. 646/1971 as the 6th defendant is a very close associate of the 2nd defendant. The 6th defendant filed O. S. No. 646/1971 on the ground that Smt. Parameswaramma -11th defendant alleged to be the wife of a. Ramachandraiah executed a settlement deed on 21-06-1971 (Ex. A-2) in respect of the suit schedule properties of Ex. A-9 in favour of her brother - 6th defendant. The plaintiff stated that Paramaeswramma is not the wife of A. Ramachandraiah, and therefore, Parameswaramma can convey nothing under Settlement Deed (Ex. A-2) in favour of the 6th defendant. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with the said parameswaramma and the 6th defendant got the decree (Ex. A-9 ). The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to gadiyaram s family. ex. A-9 suit schedule properties were nominally transferred in favour of A. Ramachandraiah, but the said ramachandraiah or any of his legal heirs were never in possession of the plaint schedule properties at any point of time and the plaintiff alone is in possession and smt. A-9 ). The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to gadiyaram s family. ex. A-9 suit schedule properties were nominally transferred in favour of A. Ramachandraiah, but the said ramachandraiah or any of his legal heirs were never in possession of the plaint schedule properties at any point of time and the plaintiff alone is in possession and smt. Parameswaramma without any right, title and interest transferred the properties of A. Ramachandraiah in favour of 6th defendant and the 6th defendant filed the suit against the father of the plaintiff and obtained a collusive decree (Ex. A-9) which was confirmed in the First Appeal and also by the High Court in the Second Appeal. Ex. A-9 schedule properties are only to an extent of Ac. 1-69 cents and the said extent along with other ancestral properties was allotted to the plaintiff and he is in exclusive possession of the same from 1971. ( 4 ) THE case of the 6th defendant is that he is the brother of the llth defendant and the llth defendant is the wife of a. Ramachandraiah. A. Ramachandraiah was the exclusive owner of Ex. A-9 schedule properties and he mortgaged the same on 10-06-1916 in favour of mogilireddy Gari Narayana Samy Reddy of thondavada village on borrowing a sum of rs. 500/- thereunder and put the said narayana Samy Reddy in possession of the plaint schedule property and the said narayana Samy Reddy died leaving his daughter and son who are the defendants in o. S. No. 646/1971 (Ex. A-9) and the said legal heirs of Narayana Samy Reddy transferred the said usufructuray mortgage rights to the 4th defendant under Ex. A-9 who is the 1st defendant in the present suit and the father of the plaintiff. A. Ramachandraiah died and his wife succeeded the properties. As per the provisions of Madras Agriculturists Relief act 4 of 1938 the debt due under the usufructuary mortgage has been wiped off and no amount was due under the said mortgage, and therefore, after the said Act, smt. A. Parameswaramma - wife of a. Ramachandraiah has succeeded to his estate, and therefore, she executed a registered settlement deed (Ex. A-2) in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ex. A. Parameswaramma - wife of a. Ramachandraiah has succeeded to his estate, and therefore, she executed a registered settlement deed (Ex. A-2) in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ex. A-9 properties and thus, this defendant became the owner of the said properties and the suit o. S. No. 646/1971 which was notly contested by the father of the plaintiff herein and the issues framed in O. S. No. 646/1971 are as follows: (1) Whether the sale deed of 1912 for the suit land in favour of A. Ramachandraiah was sham and nominal? (2) Whether the usufructuary mortgage deed dated 10-06-1916 by a. Ramachandraiah in favour of m. Narayanasamy Reddy for the suit land is benami for G. Ramaiari and his brothers (Gadiyararn family)? (3) Whether the usufructuary mortgage deed dated 10-06-1916 was transferred to G. Venkata ratnam by M. Ramaiah as a manager of the families of the successor-in-interest of usufructuary mortgage as contended by the defendants 1 to 3? (4) Whether the 4th defendant g. Venkata Ratnam redeemed the usufructuary mortgage deed dated 10-06-1916 and whether the alleged redemption is legal, valid and binding on the usufructuary mortgage legal heir a. Parameswaramma? (5) Whether the Settlement Deed dated 21-06-1971 by A. Ramachandraiah in favour of the plaintiff of the suit land is true and valid? (6) Whether the suit properties are originally belonged to late g. Ramaiah, late G. Arunachalam and late G. Subramanyaiah (Gadiyararn family)? (7) Whether the suit property was alienated nominally in favour of a. Ramachandraiah and whether paramount title remained with the aforesaid three brothers (Gadiyararn family)? (8) Whether D-4 - Gadiyararn Venkata ratnam became the full owner of the property on the death of his adoptive father and his natural father and his junior paternal uncle? (9) Whether D-4 has perfected his title to the suit properties by adverse possession? (10) Whether D-4 acquired possession of the suit properties from defendants 1 and 2 and father of the 3rd defendant as alleged by the plaintiff? (11) Whether the plaintiff has a right to redeem the usufructuary mortgage? (12) Whether the patta for the suit land is held by D-4? Whether he has been paying the kist thereon? (13) Whether the suit filed without impleading Parameswaramma and her daughter Leelavathamma is not maintainable? (11) Whether the plaintiff has a right to redeem the usufructuary mortgage? (12) Whether the patta for the suit land is held by D-4? Whether he has been paying the kist thereon? (13) Whether the suit filed without impleading Parameswaramma and her daughter Leelavathamma is not maintainable? ( 5 ) THE trial Court held most of the issues in favour of the 1st defendant - Gadiyaram venkataratnam and suit O. S. No. 646/1971 filed by the 6th defendant herein is dismissed. But the plaintiff filed the First appeal and the first appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree, against which the 1st defendant herein filed Second Appeal and the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. Thereafter, the 6th defendant filed E. P. No. 254/1980 and obtained delivery of the possession through Court. The 11th defendant - Smt. A. Parameswaramma filed written statement stating that she being the legally wedded wife of A. Ramachandraiah succeeded to the properties and she in turn executed Ex. A-2 in favour of the 6th defendant, who has also successfully fought the litigation of Ex. A-9 which was ended in s. A. 389/1978 and the suit filed by the plaintiff is frivolous litigation. She stated that her husband is not Sundara Rao but she is the legally wedded wife of a. Ramachandraiah. The plaintiff s own brothel - 2nd defendant filed the written statement denying the plaint allegations contending that he has no share in the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiff himself also divided all the joint family properties in 1971 and he is no longer a member of the joint family. The trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the suit is maintainable? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (4) To what relief? additional Issue: (5) Whether the 11th defendant s description is correct and necessary party? ( 6 ) THE plaintiff examined himself as p. W. 1 and got marked Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-10. The defendant is examined as D. W. 1 and got marked Exs. B-1 to B-5 and Exs. C-1 to c-3 were marked on behalf of the defendant through the Court. On Issue Nos. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff examined himself as p. W. 1 and got marked Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-10. The defendant is examined as D. W. 1 and got marked Exs. B-1 to B-5 and Exs. C-1 to c-3 were marked on behalf of the defendant through the Court. On Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence held that the plaintiff except saying that his father led wayward life and he is not in sound mind, he did not place any evidence about collusiveness and fraud played by the 6th defendant in obtaining Ex A-9 decree against the 1st defendant ard three others. As a matter of fact, Ex. A-9 suit filed by the 6th defendant against D-1 was dismissed but only on appeal the suit was decreed and father of the plaintiff carried the matter to the High Court and the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal. It is further held that the judgment and decree obtained by the 6th defendant in respect of the suit schedule properties in Ex. A-9 are the same in Ex. A-2 and Ex. B-3 but they are quite different and distinct from that of the plaint schedule properties of the suit. It is also held that the plaintiff is not in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and the learned Judge disbelieved the contention of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the plaint schedule properties on the basis of Ex. A-9 and Ex. A-8 sist receipts. Ex. A-9 judgment is neither a collusive nor a fraudulent one but it was contested suit and the plaintiff has failed to prove the averments made by him. It is further held that all other joint family members have not contested the suit and they have remained ex parte and none of the other family members have supported the case of the plaintiff and the suit is not maintainable at the instance of only one of the members who is the son of the 1st defendant and who has not established that the plaint schedule Ex. A-9 properties are not in exclusive possession. It is also further held that the 11th defendant is the wife of A. Ramachandraiah and she has a right to settle Ex. A-9 schedule properties under Ex. B-3 or Ex. A-2. The decree (Ex. A-9 properties are not in exclusive possession. It is also further held that the 11th defendant is the wife of A. Ramachandraiah and she has a right to settle Ex. A-9 schedule properties under Ex. B-3 or Ex. A-2. The decree (Ex. A-9) is not a fraudulent decree and the plaintiff is not entitled for any declaration as prayed for. On Issue No. 3 the trial Court held that Ex. A-9 schedule properties were taken possession by the 6th defendant and the 6th defendant is in exclusive possession of the same and the joint family properties were divided and as per Ex. C-l report of the Amin, E. P. schedule properties were delivered in favour of the 6th defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the permanent injunction. On additional Issue also, the trial Court, based on Ex. B-1 i. e. , the deposition of A. Parameswaramma in o. S. 646/1971 held that she is the wife of a. Ramachandraiah and she transferred the properties under Ex. B-3 in favour of the 6th defendant in the capacity of wife of a. Ramachandraiah and the suit is finally dismissed with costs to defendants 6 and 11 The plaintiff filed A. S. No. 101/1987 and the lower appellate Court considered the following two points: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for? ( 7 ) THE lower appellate Court while considering the entire oral and documentary evidence confirmed all the findings of the trial Court and held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the declaration as prayed for and also is not entitled for the permanent injunction and the appeal is dismissed with costs. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the lower appellate Court erred in not considering all the issues framed by the trial Court and has not considered the relevant issues that arose for consideration based on the pleadings in the plaint. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the trial court ought not to have admitted Ex. B-1 certified copy of the deposition of P. W. 2 in o. S. No. 646/1971 as she is a living person and the said Ex. B-1 is inadmissible under sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Evidence act. He further stated that Ex. A-2 (Ex. B-1 certified copy of the deposition of P. W. 2 in o. S. No. 646/1971 as she is a living person and the said Ex. B-1 is inadmissible under sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Evidence act. He further stated that Ex. A-2 (Ex. B-3) settlement Deed is not proved, and therefore, it cannot be said that the 6th defendant derived any title under it. The courts below ought to have disbelieved the evidence of D. W. 2 - Court Amin, who delivered the possession under Exs. C-1 to c-3 to the 6th defendant. The learned counsel argued the Second Appeal as a first Appeal inviting the attention of the court to decide all the questions raised based on the pleadings in the plaint and by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence afresh. I am afraid to consider the said contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial questions of law have been framed that involved in the Second Appeal, with regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant it is to be stated that the suit filed by the 1st (sic. 6th) defendant was not collusive but it was contested by the father of the plaintiff who is the 1st defendant herein and as a matter of fact the suit O. S. No. 646/1971 was dismissed against which the 6th defendant filed an appeal and it was allowed, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was a collusive decree in O. S. No. 646/1971 and both the Courts below held that, the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession in respect of the Ex. A-9 schedule properties, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and the permanent injunction as prayed for. The fact that the plaintiff raised the objection in E. P. proceedings and execution Application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed against which a Civil revision Petition was filed which was also dismissed, is admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and therefore, the contentions which have been raised by the plaintiff in the E. P. proceedings in Ex. A-9 suit have become final and the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of ex. A-9 schedule properties. Ex. A-9 schedule properties were delivered by due process of law as is evident by Exs. A-9 suit have become final and the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of ex. A-9 schedule properties. Ex. A-9 schedule properties were delivered by due process of law as is evident by Exs. C-1 to c-3 and also as per the oral evidence of d. W. 2. With regard to Ex. B-1 it is to be stated that no objection has been taken for marking Ex. B-1, and therefore, it is not open for the Counsel for the appellant to take objection with regard to marking of ex. B-1 at the stage of Second Appeal. Even other wise, the trial Court held that the issue is unnecessary for the purpose of deciding the suit and I do not consider that any substantial question of law arises for consideration on this issue. Ex. A-2 (Settlement Deed) and Ex. B-3 (Settlement Deed) have not been questioned by the plaintiff and all the contentions raised by the plaintiff have been substantially considered and held against the plaintiff in the First Appeal (Ex. A-9) and the plaintiff neither questioned Ex. A-2 and Ex. A-3 nor the title of the properties of a. Ramachandraiah and the suit is only for declaration that the judgment and decree in ex. A-9 as decreed by the appellate Court in A. S. No. 35/1975 confirmed in S. A. No. 389/1978 is collusive and fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff. For grant of permanent injunction, the plaintiff has hot proved the averment of collusive and fraudulent acts, and therefore, both the courts below held that there is neither collusion nor any fraudulent action in obtaining the decree by the judgment in a. S. NO. 35/1975 filed against Ex. A-9 judgment. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the lower appellate Court ought to have framed the issues referred for trial and ought to have considered proper points for consideration as contemplated under Order 41 Rules 25 and 31, and therefore, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded for fresh consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgments in Viyyapu Danayya v. Peethala Appa Rao, i. Gopinatha Rao (Died) Per L. Rs. v. V. Narayana and Nama Bhushaiah v. SK. Chitha Bee. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgments in Viyyapu Danayya v. Peethala Appa Rao, i. Gopinatha Rao (Died) Per L. Rs. v. V. Narayana and Nama Bhushaiah v. SK. Chitha Bee. All these judgments are distinguishable in view of the Division bench judgment in Ali Mohamood v. Spl. Court Under A. P. Land Grabbing* wherein it is held that the idea behind Order 41 rule 31, of C. P. C. is that the Court while passing the judgment shall apply its mind to the averments made available on record. The purpose of framing the points for consideration by the lower appellate Court is to clear up the pleadings and focus the attention of the Court, the purpose, the specific and rival contentions, which arise for determination. It is not necessary that the judgment should recall all facts in detail and should deal mechanically with all points. It would be sufficient if the Court renders its independent judgment. Failure to frame points for consideration, at best can be said to be only a technical defect or a procedural irregularity, which can be cured if the judgment is in substantial compliance of all other requirements. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the lower appellate court considered all the points that arose for consideration and though considered two points, in fact all the contentions of grounds of appeal are considered in the judgment and however, I do not see any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. ( 10 ) IN Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty the Apex Court held that even assuming that another view is possible on reappreciation of the same evidence by the high Court, but it cannot take another view taken by the first appellate Court based on the same material. In my considered view, the lower appellant Court fairly appreciated the evidence and reached the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is rightly dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court. ( 11 ) THE questions raised have been substantially decided in the earlier proceedings in the suit which has become final and I do not see any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the Second Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.