P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below. Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had urged the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to repartition when partition already had taken place between the sharers after the death of Ramachari ? 2. Whether the findings relating to the plea of adverse possession and ouster be sustained especially in the light of the fact that these are two different concepts and there is no specific plea relating to ouster in this regard ? 3. Whether the presumption in favour of jointness weakens especially in relation to children representing two wives of a person ? sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, the Counsel representing the appellants had taken this court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and had pointed out that though there is no specific plea of ouster, certain findings in relation thereto had been given and the plea of adverse possession is something different from the plea of ouster. The learned counsel while elaborating his submissions had explained these two concepts. The counsel also would maintain that these are two branches representing two wives and in such a case, the presumption after passage of time would be definitely weakened and cannot be so strong and this aspect was lost sight of. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in A. S. No. 397/87. The Counsel also would maintain that the appellate Court had not recorded reasons in detail and in this view of the matter, it is a fit case where an order of remand may have to be made. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in A. S. No. 397/87. The Counsel also would maintain that the appellate Court had not recorded reasons in detail and in this view of the matter, it is a fit case where an order of remand may have to be made. ( 2 ) ON the contrary, Sri Venkata Rama Rao, the learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by both the Courts below and had submitted that while confirming the findings of the trial Court, the appellate court need not record the reasons in detail again which would be just repetitive, but if the aspects had been considered and had been confirmed that would be sufficient and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the appellate Court had committed any illegality in this regard warranting an order of remand. The Counsel also had explained that the plea of prior partition set up by the other side had been disbelieved by both the Courts below and it being a question of fact, the same cannot be disturbed in the Second Appeal. The counsel also had explained that when the parties are representing two wings just representing the wives of the same person and especially when the plea of partition raised by the defendants had been disbelieved, the Courts below are well justified in decreeing the suit and hence the said findings need no disturbance at the hands of this Court. The Counsel had placed reliance on pragada VENKATA KAMA JAGGARAO AND OTHERS Vs. BONDALAM VENKATA JAGANNADHAMMA alias ATTEYYA, P. LAKSHMI REDDY Vs. L. LAKSHMI REDDY and GUR NARAIN DAS Vs. GUR TAHAL DAS in this regard. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS in the Second Appeal as plaintiffs instituted the suit O. S. No. 494/98 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy district against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties. ( 4 ) IT was pleaded in the plaint that late Jonnada Ramaiah @ Ramachari died in the year 1974 leaving behind the plaint schedule immovable properties which were his self-acquired properties. It was further pleaded that the plaint schedule property is self-acquired during his life time with his own earnings which remained undivided. No partition took place after his demise in the year 1974. It was further pleaded that the plaint schedule property is self-acquired during his life time with his own earnings which remained undivided. No partition took place after his demise in the year 1974. Plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 13 and 14 are his sons and daughter born through his first wife Jonnada Mallamma who died in the year 1945. Defendants 1 to 6 are his children through his second wife Jonnada Nagamani who died on 5-3-1968. It was also pleaded that Ramachari had also a daughter by name Kanathaala shantha through his second wife, Nagamani. But, she died in the year 1997. Defendants 7 to 12 are her children and the 7th defendant is her husband. Defendants 8, 9 and 11 are daughters and defendants 10 and 12 are her sons. The plaintiffs and the defendants are entitled to 1/11th share each in the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 got issued legal notice dated 19-6-1998 to the defendants 1 to 7 for partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds. The defendants have received the same and gave reply notice dated 4-7-1998. They admitted the relationship and the plaint schedule properties being left by late Jonnada Ramaiah but denied that the other properties shown in reply notice are the properties acquired by Jonnada Ramaiah and that they are the exclusive and separate properties being the gains of learning of plaintiffs 1 and 2. It was pleaded that the 3rd property shown in the reply notice was gifted away by late Jonnada Ramaiah during his life time to 13th defendant at the time of her marriage in or about the year 1939 and since then she had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession thereof and hence the said property is not included for partition. There was no partition of the properties after the demise of late Jonnada Ramaiah and they still remain undivided. It was further pleaded that Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 6 are entitled to 1/11th share each and defendants 7 to 12 collectively are entitled to 1/11th share and defendants 13 and 14 individually are entitled to 1/11th share each in the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the co-owners and are in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties with the defendants in respect of plaint schedule properties, but an entry in column no. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the co-owners and are in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties with the defendants in respect of plaint schedule properties, but an entry in column no. 13 of pahani of Budwel village from 1991-92 onwards shows the name of nagamani, the second wife of the deceased Jonnada Ramaiah and the said entry is illegal and void having been made without notice to the plaintiffs. Therefore, it was pleaded that the suit may be decreed for partition of the plaint schedule immovable properties by metes and bounds and to allot 1/11th share to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 each by metes and bounds with separate possession and for cancellation of the entry in the name of Nagamani from the year 1991-92 onwards to date with costs and other reliefs. ( 5 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement in detail admitting the relationship. It was further pleaded that late Jonnada Ramaiah apart from the plaint schedule properties left behind three other properties viz. , h. No. 12-10-416/8/7f admeasuring 200 sq. yards situated at Warasiguda, secunderabad, plot No. 25/a in Sy. No. 167/1 admeasuring 200 sq. yards situated at indiranagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad and a house bearing No. 1/2/40 admeasuring 160 sq. yards situated at Budwel village, Rajendernagar Mandal. The above properties were the joint family properties which were acquired with the joint family funds. Initially a plot was purchased by late Jonnada Ramaiah in the name of the plaintiffs and later house bearing No. 12-10-416/b/7f was constructed during his life time with the joint family funds. Plot bearing No. 25/a in sy. No. 167/1 admeasuring 200 sq. yards was purchased in the name of the 2nd plaintiff with the joint family funds and a house bearing Municipal no. 12-10-587/50/2 was constructed thereon with joint family funds. It was denied that the properties remained undivided and no partition took place after his death. It was pleaded that in fact after the death of late Ramaiah all the above five properties were partitioned and divided by metes and bounds among the branches of late Mallamma, the first wife of Jonnada Ramaiah and late j. Nagamani, the second wife in the year 1980. Both the branches are in exclusive and absolute possession of their respective properties got separated and had been living separately since 1980 having strained relations between them. Both the branches are in exclusive and absolute possession of their respective properties got separated and had been living separately since 1980 having strained relations between them. It was further pleaded that house bearing No. 12-10-416/8/7f situated at warasiguda and house bearing No. 1-2-40 situated at Budwel village fell to the share of children of late J. Mallamma viz. , plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 13 and 14. The plaint schedule properties fell to the share of children of nagamani. From the date of the said partition, defendants 1 to 12 are in absolute, peaceful and exclusive possession of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs are not entitled to 1/11th share each in the plaint schedule properties as partition had already taken place along with other properties held by the plaintiffs long back. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs have got issued legal notice dated 9-6-1998 to the defendants 1 to 7 with a false claim of partition of the plaint schedule properties. It was further pleaded that the defendants 1 to 3 gave suitable reply to the said notice on 4-7-1998. In the said notice the defendants have made it clear that the partition had already taken place between the plaintiffs and the defendants and therefore the question of partition again does not arise at all. It was also denied that the properties bearing No. 12-10-416/8/7f and H. No. 12/1-/587/50/2 are the exclusive and separate properties of plaintiffs 1 and 2 but those properties were purchased out of joint family funds. Plaintiffs and the defendants were in joint at the time of their purchase. Open land was purchased with joint family funds in the year 1969 bearing plot No. 165 and 166 in Sy. No. 37 and 38 admeasuring 233 sq. yards at Seethafalmandi, Warasiguda and later a house bearing No. 12-10-416/8/7f was constructed by spending joint family funds. After the death of J. Ramaiah, plaintiff No. 1 became the kartha of the joint family properties and managing the entire properties. Plot bearing No. 25/a in s. No. 167/1 situated at Indira nagar colony, Warasiguda was purchased by the said kartha (1st plaintiff) in the name of the 2nd plaintiff out of the joint family funds and later a house was constructed thereon with the joint family funds about 20 years back and Municipal No. 12-10-587/50/2 was assigned. Plot bearing No. 25/a in s. No. 167/1 situated at Indira nagar colony, Warasiguda was purchased by the said kartha (1st plaintiff) in the name of the 2nd plaintiff out of the joint family funds and later a house was constructed thereon with the joint family funds about 20 years back and Municipal No. 12-10-587/50/2 was assigned. It was denied that the 1st plaintiff had constructed house bearing Municipal No. 12-10-416/8/7f with his own money. It was also denied that H. No. 12-10-587/50/2 is the exclusive and separate property of the 2nd plaintiff, but actually the plot was purchased and house was constructed out of joint family funds. It was also denied that the property bearing No. 1-2-40 admeasuring 160 sq. yards situated at Budwel village was gifted away by late J. Ramaiah during his life time to the 13th defendant at the time of her marriage in or about 1939. It was denied that the 13th defendant had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession thereof. It was pleaded that defendants 13 and 14 have colluded with the plaintiffs in claiming the properties. It was denied that the plaint schedule properties still remain undivided and that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and allotment of 1/11th share each in the plaint schedule properties. Defendants 1 to 3 have developed the plaint schedule properties with their own funds after the oral partition in the year 1980. They had been cultivating the same since then and became absolute owners by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that defendants 1 to 3 perfected their title by way of adverse possession and plaintiffs have no share in the plaint schedule properties. Defendants 2 to 12 filed a memo of adoption adopting the written statement filed by the 1st defendant. Defendant No. 13 filed a written statement admitting the suit claim and claiming 1/11th share in the plaint schedule property. Defendant No. 14 likewise filed a written statement admitting the suit claim and praying to allot 1/11th share in the plaint schedule property. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were settled by the Court of first instance: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of the shares in the suit properties as claimed ? 2. Whether there was earlier partition of the family properties ? 3. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were settled by the Court of first instance: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of the shares in the suit properties as claimed ? 2. Whether there was earlier partition of the family properties ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of entries in the name of Nagamani in the pahanies as prayed for ? 4. Whether defendants 1 to 5 perfected title by way of adverse possession over the suit schedule properties ? 5. To what relief ? ( 6 ) THE 1st plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and the 2nd plaintiff as PW-2 and another neighbour as PW-3 and Exs. A-1 to A-17 were marked. The 13th defendant was examined as DW-1, 14th defendant as DW-2, 1st defendant as DW-3 and the 3rd defendant as DW-4 and a neighbour was examined as DW-5 and Exs. B-1 to B-28 were marked. The Court of first instance recorded findings on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and had arrived at a conclusion that there was no earlier partition and the possession of one co-owner would be on behalf of the other co-owners and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 11 shares by metes and bounds. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 to 12 had carried the matter by way of Appeal A. S. No. 1/2001 on the file of I additional District Judge, L. B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and the learned Judge had confirmed the same and aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred. ( 7 ) THE Court of first instance had recorded reasons in detail which were affirmed by the appellate Court as well. No doubt certain contentions were advanced relating to the concept of adverse possession and the concept of ouster and it is needless to say that in view of the relationship between the parties, all the parties being co-sharers, in the absence of proof of factum of partition, these aspects may not be very essential to be discussed at length. However, reliance was placed on the decision referred (1) supra wherein it was held that a co-owner cannot set up the plea of adverse possession when partition did not take place. However, reliance was placed on the decision referred (1) supra wherein it was held that a co-owner cannot set up the plea of adverse possession when partition did not take place. Reliance also was placed on the decision referred (2) supra wherein the Apex Court had stated :". . . BUT it is well settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits, of the properties. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. The possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. The co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir, not in possession, merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heirs title. It is a settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster. " ( 8 ) IN the decision referred (3) supra, it was held that where the plaintiff is a co-sharer in principle he can maintain the suit for partition even though he is not in actual possession unless exclusion and ouster are pleaded and proved. The oral and documentary evidence available on record - Exs. A-1 to A-17 and exs. B-1 to B-28 and also the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and DW-1 to DW-5 had been discussed at length and a finding was recorded that there was no partition amongst the members of this family and the other properties pleaded are not available for partition and the defendants have not perfected their title by adverse possession since these properties continue to be joint family properties and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for. Reliance also was placed on a decision of this Court in d. R. ADINARAYANA SWAMY Vs. GIRIRAJU PAPAMMA AND ANOTHER. Reliance also was placed on a decision of this Court in d. R. ADINARAYANA SWAMY Vs. GIRIRAJU PAPAMMA AND ANOTHER. The appellate Court at para 8 had framed the following Points for consideration : 1. Whether earlier partition pleaded by the appellants is true and valid ? 2. Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the schedule properties as prayed for ? the appellate Court had discussed the factual aspects at paras 9 to 11 and had arrived at a conclusion that there are no grounds to disturb the findings recorded by the Court of first instance. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 had been discussed and likewise the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 also had been discussed and the documentary evidence also was considered in detail. The evidence of DW-3, dw-4 and DW-5 also had been considered. A clear finding was recorded that the evidence adduced by the defendants would not show that their father Ramachari purchased properties in the name of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants further failed to prove that there was further partition between the parties. It was further stated that on the other hand the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and the admissions of DW-3 and DW-4 in their evidence would indicate that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased properties at Hyderabad with their earnings by working in Government Departments. The evidence of the family members available on record and the neighbours who were examined had been discussed and concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below. No doubt, a contention was advanced that the presumption available in favour of jointness would weaken in relation to the children representing the two wives of a person. When the children of a person no doubt representing the two wives are fighting the litigation praying for the relief of partition, unless there is clear proof relating to the prior partition as pleaded by the appellants/defendants 1 to 12, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the findings arrived at by both the Courts below are in any way erroneous. Hence, this question relating to the weakening of the presumption need not be considered further in the light of the clear factual situation. Hence, I am not inclined to accept with any of the contentions raised by the Counsel for the appellants. Hence, this question relating to the weakening of the presumption need not be considered further in the light of the clear factual situation. Hence, I am not inclined to accept with any of the contentions raised by the Counsel for the appellants. Even otherwise, the questions of law raised definitely are not substantial questions of law and these are all questions in relation to facts only. Hence, I do not see any reason to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below granting the relief of preliminary decree for partition. Hence, the Second Appeal is bound to fail and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. In view of the close relationship between the parties, the parties to bear their own costs.