JUDGMENT : K.S. Mudagal, J. This Second Appeal of the first defendant arises out of the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, in R.A. No.19/2009. By the impugned judgment and decree the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and modified the decree granting 1/9th share to plaintiff No.1(a) and 4/9th share each to plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1/appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Plaintiff No.1 Dalappa had two wives by name Giriyamma and Lakshmakka. First defendant Narasimhamurthy and second defendant Gangamma were his son and daughter through his first wife Giriyamma. Second plaintiff Nagarathnamma was his daughter through his second wife Lakshmakka. 3. Dalappa and Nagarathnamma filed O.S. No.383/1996 against the present appellant and his sister Gangamma for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit properties. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Trial Court. 4. The subject matter of the suit were the agricultural lands shown as item Nos.1 and 2 in the suit schedule and house properties shown as suit schedule item No.3 situated within the limits of Huchabasavanahalli village of Tumakuru taluk. 5. Plaintiffs contended that themselves and defendants constitute the joint Hindu family and the suit schedule properties were the ancestral joint family properties. Therefore they sought decree for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share each. 6. Pending the suit first plaintiff Dalappa died and his second widow Lakshmakka was brought on record as plaintiff No.1(a). Even before the institution of the suit his first wife Giriyamma had predeceased Dalappa. 7. Only defendant No.1 contested the suit. He admitted the relationship, but contended that he has incurred huge loan from PLD Bank to improve the suit schedule properties, for finding a bridegroom for second plaintiff and for treatment of the first plaintiff and unless the plaintiff's share the liability, they are not entitled to any share in the properties. 8. On the basis of such pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Does the defendant prove that, he had raised loan from PLD Bank and he has discharged the same as alleged in para 5 of the written statement? 2. Does the defendant prove that, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. 8. On the basis of such pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Does the defendant prove that, he had raised loan from PLD Bank and he has discharged the same as alleged in para 5 of the written statement? 2. Does the defendant prove that, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Are the plaintiffs entitled for separate possession of 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties? 4. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient? 5. What order or decree? 9. The parties adduced evidence. Second plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and plaintiff No.1(a) was examined as PW.2. On their behalf EXs.P1 to P4 were produced. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, but no documentary evidence was adduced. 10. The trial Court after hearing the parties held that the first defendant has failed to prove his defence and granted 1/3rd share to the plaintiff No.2. So far as plaintiff No.1(a) the trial Court held that since she is the second wife, she is not entitled to any share. 11. The first defendant challenged the said judgment and decree before the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.19/2009. The First Appellate Court concurring with the findings of the trial Court with regard to the nature of the properties and rejection of the defence of the defendants dismissed the appeal. 12. However, the First Appellate Court modified the decree by allotting one share to Dalappa. The First Appellate Court further held that on death of Dalappa plaintiff No.1(a), plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 being his class one heirs get 1/3rd each in his 1/3rd share which comes to 1/9th share and allotted 1/9th share to plaintiff No.1(a) and 4/9th share to plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1. 13. This being the second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be admitted for hearing, only if there is substantial question of law in the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurnam Singh (D) by Lrs. and Others vs. Lehna Singh (D) by Lrs,2019 SCCOnlineSC 374 has held in this regard in paragraph 26 of the judgment as follows: "26 .. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain second appeal under Section 100 CPC after the 1976 Amendment, is confined only when the second appeal involves a substantial question of law. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain second appeal under Section 100 CPC after the 1976 Amendment, is confined only when the second appeal involves a substantial question of law. The existence of 'a substantial question of law' is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam (Supra), in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court, unless it finds that the conclusions drawn by the lower Court were erroneous being: (i) Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the applicable law; OR (ii) Contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court; OR (iii) Based on in-admissible evidence or no evidence. " (Emphasis supplied) 14. Therefore, now this Court has to see whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is contrary to any applicable law, law pronounced by the Apex Court or based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence. 15. Only the first defendant had contested the suit. He did not dispute the relationship and nature of the properties. His contention was that he has incurred huge loan from PLD bank for family necessity and the plaintiffs are liable to share the same, otherwise they are not entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. Except for his self serving testimony which was denied by the plaintiffs, no evidence was adduced in proof of his alleged liability. No piece of document was produced to prove such liability. 16. Under such circumstances, the trial Court held that the parties constitute joint family and the suit properties are the joint family properties and his defence is not proved. The trial Court granted 1/3rd share to second plaintiff alone holding that so far as plaintiff No.1(a), she is the second wife, therefore she is not entitled to her share. 17. As on the date of the judgment of the trial Court, Dalappa was not alive. Even Gangamma, the second defendant died during pendency of the first appeal. It is submitted that her husband predeceased her and she had no issues. 17. As on the date of the judgment of the trial Court, Dalappa was not alive. Even Gangamma, the second defendant died during pendency of the first appeal. It is submitted that her husband predeceased her and she had no issues. As per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act a notional partition was to be effected and Dalappa's share was to be distributed again to his widow and children. Since plaintiff No.1(a) was the only surviving widow, as per Section 10 Rule 1 she was entitled to equal share in the share of Dalappa. 18. The First Appellate Court, considering these aspects dismissed the appeal and modified the decree allotting 1/3rd share to Dalappa, in turn allotting 1/3rd share each to plaintiff No.1(a), 2 and defendant No.1, thereby modifying the share of plaintiff No.2 to 4/9th. 19. The judgment of the First Appellate Court was based on the evidence on record. No inadmissible evidence was considered by the First Appellate Court and allotment of the share was in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court does not find any substantial question of law in the case to admit the appeal. Appeal is dismissed accordingly.