JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of the case while seeking the relief of partition and declaration by the plaintiff, it is contended that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and the same are available for partition and also contend in the suit that Smt.Venkatamma had no absolute right to execute the registered settlement deed dated 16.12.2013 in respect of the suit properties and the said settlement deed is not binding on his share. The defendants have appeared and filed written statement and admitted the relationship between the parties and the death of his parents. The defendant No.1 further admitted about the grant of the property and PTCL proceedings. The defendant No.1 also admitted about the family settlement dated 12.04.1999 and about not including Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties in the said family settlement. The defendant No.1 further contend that Item No.1 of suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Smt.Venkatamma as such she had absolute right over the said extent of land and same was transferred to defendant No.1 and the said transfer cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. When the Item No.2 of the suit schedule property was restored to the Smt.Venkatamma in the year 2012, there was no joint family of the plaintiff and defendants and the children of Smt.Venkatamma were married prior to 1980 and as the defendant No.1 and the said Smt.Venkatamma lived together in the same house and as the defendant No.1 took care of Smt.Venkatamma and she executed the settlement deed dated 16.12.2013 and hence, suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. 3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court even considering the material available on record, both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that there was a family arrangement between the members of the family and both the plaintiff and defendants got divided the property and no dispute with regard to the properties are standing in the name of the family and also Smt.Venkatamma got allotted the property on 13.03.2013 and the same was restored in her name and also family arrangement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and their mother was also taken place on 01.04.1999 dividing the said properties and also taken note of the said property was allotted in favour of Venkatamma and she has executed a settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 that is Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties and the same was not available for partition on 01.04.1999 as the said property was sold on 15.02.1995 itself. But, subsequent to the family arrangement only, the same was restored to the Smt.Venkatamma in the PTCL proceedings in PTCL No.30/2009-10. As on the date of filing of suit, joint family was not in existence and the land was originally granted in favour of Smt.Venkatamma on 07.12.1972 with a condition not to alienate the land for a period of 15 years. However, it was sold on 15.12.1995, the same was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the property was restored in favour of her and she has executed the settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 and all these factors were taken note of and when the property exclusively belongs to Smt.Venkatamma and she has executed the settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 and hence, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition and dismissed the suit. 4. The First Appellate Court also in detail discussed the same and also formulated the point whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and Smt.Venkatamma has no absolute right over the same and whether the defendant No.1 proves that the property was absolute property of Smt.Venkatamma and she has executed a settlement deed in his favour of defendant No.1 and whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the property exclusively belongs to Smt.Venkatamma and defendant also proved that Venkatamma was having absolute right and she has also executed a settlement deed in his favour of defendant No.1 and answered the point No.1 as negative and answered the point No.2 as affirmative and comes to the conclusion that matter does not require any interference. The First Appellate Court particularly in paragraph Nos.30, 31 and 32 in detail discussed the same and also taken note of there was no any reference in Ex.D.5-partition deed about the suit Item No.2. If really it was a joint family property there would have been some reference in the said partition deed and it would have been stated in the partition deed that after it is resumed or re-granted, the said property will be divided between them and no such averment, the same is observed in paragraph Nos.30. The Appellate Court in paragraph No.31 also taken note of partition was taken place 14 years back that is in the year 1999. The plaintiff also not placed any material before this Court to show that joint family having any right of share over the property which was restored or re- granted in favour of Smt.Venkatamma and Venkatamma inturn executed a settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 and First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court and counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts are not justified in holding that settlement deed dated 16.12.2013 executed by Venkatamma in favour of the 1 st defendant conferred valid title on the 1 st defendant in respect of the suit schedule properties and the said settlement deed is null and void being in violation of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. It is contended that dismissing the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is not entitled for a share without appreciating such a settlement deed executed without prior permission of the State Government is null and void and hence, it requires interference. 6. It is contended that dismissing the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is not entitled for a share without appreciating such a settlement deed executed without prior permission of the State Government is null and void and hence, it requires interference. 6. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also on perusal of material on record, particularly pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendants and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, as on the date of settlement in the year 1999, a document was came into existence and joint family was severed long back and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. It is not in dispute that there was a sale in the year 1995 in respect of the property which was granted in favour of Venkatamma and there was a violation of PTCL Act and hence an application also filed for restoration and the same was restored in favour of Venkatamma and subsequently, she has executed a settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 since she was staying along with the defendant No.1 and the same is emerged during the course of evidence. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court also appreciated the same. 7. The Trial Court while considering Issue No.1 to 3, in detail discussed the same in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 14 and also in paragraph No.15 taken note of Item No.2 that is D.W.1 produced the grant certificate of Ex.D.7 and the land was granted in the year 1972 and subsequently, it was sold in the year 1995 and property was also got restored and subsequently on the restoration only, she has executed a settlement deed dated 16.12.2013 and all these facts were taken note of by the Trial Court. Apart from that even Appellate Court also in detail discussed the same from paragraph No.32 that there was no any reference in the earlier partition deed with regard to the property which was allotted to the share of Smt.Venkatamma and the said grant was also made in favour of Smt.Venkatamma. Though, it is contended that the said allotment was in favour of the joint family, but not placed any material and substantiated the same to that aspect. 8. Though, it is contended that the said allotment was in favour of the joint family, but not placed any material and substantiated the same to that aspect. 8. The Appellate Court also taken note of both factual aspects and also the law and though it is contended that the settlement is in violation of Section 4 of the Special enactment and the same cannot be accepted and there is a grant in favour of Venkatamma and inturn she executed a settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 and she was the absolute owner of the property and she conveyed the title in favour of the defendant No.1. Hence, no ground is made out to admit and frame substantive question of law. Both the Courts considered both question of fact and question of law and hence, not a case to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER Second appeal is dismissed