ORDER : Neranahalli Srinivasan Sanjay Gowda, J. 1. Mahadevamma the plaintiff, filed a suit for partition against her mother Nanjamma (defendant No. 1) and her brother Siddegowda (defendant No. 2). It was her case that the suit properties were the ancestral properties of her family and that 3rd she was entitled for 1/3 share. 2. Her brother-defendant No. 2 set up a defence that the suit properties were his self-acquired properties. 3. The Trial Court, on consideration of the entire evidence adduced during the trial, came to the conclusion that the suit properties were the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff's family and the plaintiff was entitled to a share. 4. Since the mother of the plaintiff had also died during the pendency of the suit, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit and granted the plaintiff half a share in all the suit properties. 5. The Trial Court also held that the sales made by her brother - defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were not binding on her share. 6. The defendant No. 3 i.e., the purchaser of item No. 3 preferred an appeal. 7. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court insofar as allotment of half a share to the plaintiff was concerned and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 8. The Appellate Court however, while disposing off the appeal has made certain observations regarding the allotment of the share of defendant No. 2 - brother, to the purchasers from him. 8.1. It is this judgment and decree of the Appellate Court that is impugned in this second appeal by the purchaser i.e., defendant No. 3. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that item No. 2 being a valuable property, towards the share of the plaintiff, the entire item No. (sic) could be allotted to her and thereby the difficulty of defendant No. 3 could be mitigated. 10. In my view, this contention cannot be accepted in this second appeal. Admittedly, defendant No. 3 is concerned only with the purchase made by him in respect of item No. 3. 10. In my view, this contention cannot be accepted in this second appeal. Admittedly, defendant No. 3 is concerned only with the purchase made by him in respect of item No. 3. Since it has been held by both the courts that his vendor has only half a share in item No. 3, the alienation in his favour would be valid only to the extent of half a share and he would have acquired no title in respect of other half in item No. 3. 11. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the shares could be allotted in such a manner so as to protect his rights, in my view, this exercise cannot be done in a second appeal. If the brother - defendant No. 2 agrees to give up the share in respect of item No. 2 to his sister - the plaintiff, then it is open for the appellant herein to request the Court which is seized of final decree proceedings to allocate item No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff in its entirety. It cannot however be done at the instance of defendant No. 3 alone. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Appellate Court has not dismissed the appeal and it only modified the appeal. A reading of the decree of the judgment passed by the Appellate Court would go to show that the Appellate Court has confirmed the grant of half a share to the plaintiff as ordered by the Trial Court. The only modification that is done is in respect of the manner in which the share of defendant No. 2 is to be allotted and thereafter that share to be allotted to the purchaser from defendant No. 2. In effect, the decree of the Trial Court is affirmed insofar as it relates to the grant of half a share to the plaintiff. 13. In my view, there is no question of law as such arising for consideration in this second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.