JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 14-9-2018 in A.S.No.34 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01-5-2008 in O.S.No.717 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. The appellant herein is the 2 nd defendant, the 1 st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.No.717 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.717 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, with a prayer for partition and separate possession of 1/8 th share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, decreed the suit with costs, by passing a preliminary decree granting 1/8 th share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 2 nd defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dismissed the appeal suit by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 2 nd defendant /appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal. During the pendency of second appeal, the sole appellant died and the 2 nd appellant, who is his wife, was brought on record as legal representative of deceased sole appellant vide I.A.No.1 of 2022 as per Court order dated 30-12-2024. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.717 of 2004, is as follows: (a) It is pleaded that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are children of late Chinna Naganna and Smt. Venkatamma and defendants 1 and 3 are her sisters, whereas the 2 nd defendant is her brother. Their father inherited various properties from his ancestors and he also acquired some other properties from out of his earnings from ancestral properties which are mentioned in the plaint schedule. Their father inherited various properties from his ancestors and he also acquired some other properties from out of his earnings from ancestral properties which are mentioned in the plaint schedule. Her mother predeceased her father intestate and her father died in the year 1986 leaving behind her and defendants 1 to 3 only as his legal representatives to succeed the plaint schedule properties. (b) It is further pleaded that after the death of their father, the 2 nd defendant being the only male member of the family used to manage the suit schedule properties on behalf of all the legal heirs and he used to give some amount now and then every year towards their share from the income derived from the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff came to know that the 2 nd defendant was secretly trying to alienate some of the properties without the consent and knowledge of other sharers, due to that she orally demanded the defendants 1 to 3 for partition of the suit schedule properties, but they postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Then, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 08-10-2003 calling upon the defendants 1 to 3 for amicable division of the suit schedule properties. But, the defendants who had received the legal notice neither come forward nor gave reply. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/8 th share in the plaint schedule properties. 7. The defendants 1 and 3 remained ex parte before the trial Court and they had not chosen to contest the suit. 8. The 2 nd defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and he further contended as follows: The 2 nd defendant admitted the relationship among the parties as set out in the plaint and he also admitted that their mother predeceased their father. It is submitted that the marriages of plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3 were performed more than 35 years back. It is contended that the plaintiff had no right to claim 1/8 th share in the plaint schedule properties which are shown in the plaint. It is contended that before the death of their parents, they gave money to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3, who relinquished their right in the plaint schedule properties. It is submitted that he borrowed money from various persons due to drought conditions. It is contended that before the death of their parents, they gave money to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3, who relinquished their right in the plaint schedule properties. It is submitted that he borrowed money from various persons due to drought conditions. It is further contended that the plaintiff never demanded for partition of 1/8 th share of lands and he never promised that he will divide the lands as plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3 had no right over the plaint schedule lands. He prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of plaintiff 1/8 th share in suit schedule properties ? and (2) To what relief ? 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the 2 nd defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 11. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs, by passing a preliminary decree granting 1/8 th share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 2 nd defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.34 of 2013 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, wherein the following points came up for consideration: (1) Whether the respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of plaint schedule properties ? (2) Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is valid, legal and based on evidence adduced by both parties ? and (3) To what relief ? 12. The learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the 2 nd defendant/appellant and in favour of the plaintiff/1 st respondent and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the 2 nd defendant. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 2 nd defendant in O.S.No.717 of 2004 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 13. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 2 nd defendant in O.S.No.717 of 2004 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 13. After institution of the second appeal by the 2 nd defendant in the suit, this Court ordered notice to the respondents before admission and the said notices were served on the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3, but none appeared on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Heard Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/2 nd defendant and Sri K.V.S.D. Ravi Teja, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent/plaintiff. 14. It has to be kept in mind that right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC could be admitted only when appellant satisfies the Court that substantial question of law between the parties arise in the case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In the case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi , [ (2007) 8 SCC 155 ] , the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact viz., the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. 15. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. 15. The 2 nd defendant having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for him to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 16. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any substantial question of law. The contention of the appellant is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 17. The 1 st respondent herein/plaintiff is seeking the relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties. The relationship in between both the parties to the suit is undisputed. The burden in a suit for partition to establish that the subject properties belong to the joint family and they have attained the character of joint family properties is on the plaintiff. It is admitted by both the parties that their parents are no more, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the children of K. Chinna Naganna and late Venkatamma who predeceased her husband. It is undisputed by both the parties that their parents died intestate and their father died intestate in the year 1986 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as children and the mother of the parties predeceased her husband as an intestate. 18. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, she relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is the legal notice said to have been issued by the plaintiff through her counsel to the defendants 1 to 3 and Exs.A-2 to A-4 go to show that the said legal notice was received by them. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, she relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is the legal notice said to have been issued by the plaintiff through her counsel to the defendants 1 to 3 and Exs.A-2 to A-4 go to show that the said legal notice was received by them. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the parents of the appellant have given amount to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3 before the death of the parents and they relinquished their share in the plaint schedule properties. To establish the same, no piece of evidence was produced by the appellant. As per the own admission of the appellant, the plaint schedule properties are the properties of his ancestors and his father is an agriculturist and out of the income derived from his ancestral properties, his father purchased some more properties. 19. It is the contention of the appellant that by borrowing money from third parties, he discharged the debts contacted by his father. The appellant relied on the evidence of D.Ws.2 and 3. According to D.W.2, he lent an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the 2 nd defendant and subsequently the 2 nd defendant discharged the same. According to D.W.3, the appellant borrowed money from him for his family expenses. Therefore, the evidence of both D.Ws.2 and 3 is not in consistent. The appellant herein relied on Ex.B-1 pattadar pass book. It is well settled that mutation of a land in the Revenue records does not create or extinguish title over the schedule land nor has it any presumptive value on the title. It only enables a person in whose favour the mutation is ordered, to pay land revenue to the said land in question. Further, it is well settled that possession of a co-owner is possession in the property on behalf of all the co-owners. 20. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and their parents died intestate and it is also undisputed that the plaint schedule properties are not yet partitioned by metes and bounds in between both the parties. Therefore, certainly the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the immovable properties as a daughter of her parents when their parents died intestate. 21. Therefore, certainly the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the immovable properties as a daughter of her parents when their parents died intestate. 21. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points in favour of the plaintiff and against the 2 nd defendant do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and material on record and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 22. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , [ AIR 2006 SC 1975 ] . In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of CPC. 23. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal.