JUDGMENT : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2025 in A.S.No.08 of 2020 passed by the Principal District Judge at Vikarabad, confirming the judgment dated 03.12.2019 in O.S.No.290 of 2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, the present Second Appeal is filed. 2. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before trial Court. For convenience, the parties are arrayed as they are referred to in the suit. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of land admeasuring Acs.10.07 guntas in Sy.No.215, Acs.4.25 guntas in Sy.No.216, Ac.1.13 guntas in Sy.No.220 and Acs.5.29 guntas in Sy.No.222, all situated at Chinthalpally Village, Pudur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (herein after referred as “suit schedule property”). One Kammari Kistamma was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, she had three sons namely Kammari Narayana, Kammari Ramulu and Kammari Laxmaiah. The said Kammari Narayana expired leaving behind his wife Kalamma and Kammari Laxmaiah expired leaving behind his wife Lalithamma, who also expired. When partition has taken place amongst the children of Kammari Kistamma, the suit schedule property is mutated in the names of Kammari Ramulu, Kammari Kalamma and Kammari Lalithamma vide proceedings No.B/222/2007, dated 31.03.2007. Accordingly, 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.220 and in Sy.No.222 of Chinthalpally Village, Pudur Mandal was mutated in the name of Kammari Lalithamma and further pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in her name. Kammari Lalithamma expired on 06.07.2007, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant as her legal heirs. 4.1. An extent of Acs.3.16 guntas in Sy.No.215 and an extent of Ac.1.21 guntas in Sy.No.216 are inam lands of Kammari Kistamma and later, Occupancy Rights Certificate was granted to the family of late Kistamma; Kammari Lalithamma has got two children i.e., plaintiff and defendant and all of them have constituted an Hindu Undivided Joint Family and they are governed by Mitakashara School of law; that the defendant tried to alienate the suit schedule property to the third parties, without consent or knowledge of plaintiff and thereafter, plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property, but defendant refused for partition. Hence, the suit for partition. 5. Hence, the suit for partition. 5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and claimed that the land admeasuring Acs.3.16 guntas in Sy.No.215 and Ac.1.21 guntas in Sy.No.216 are the lands of the defendant as such, the Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued in favour of defendant as on 01.11.1999, on payment of premium to the Government, therefore, plaintiff has no right to claim the suit schedule property. It is further averred that Sy.No.220 comprises only Ac.0.17 guntas, and Sy.No.222 comprises only Ac.5.29 guntas, out of which the plaintiff and the defendant each hold a one-third share; that the plaintiff without consent and knowledge of the defendant and her mother, obtained proceedings in respect of suit schedule property and no enquiry was conducted by the revenue authorities before issuing proceedings. 5.1. That the defendant has given an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.215 to his first wife K.Bagyamma for her maintenance. During the lifetime of Kistamma, she sold an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas to one Rajender Reddy and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. That the defendant has given Rs.3,00,000/-to the plaintiff towards her share, she openly received the above said amount at the time of construction of the house and other financial needs. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property and she is not entitled for half share out of the suit schedule property. 5.2. The plaintiff has filed rejoinder and contended that the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued to the Hindu Undivided Joint Family was based on the possession of their ancestors as on the notified date. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the gift deed executed by the defendant in favour of his wife is without consent or knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, the same is not binding on her and denied that she has received Rs.3,00,000/- and that she will not claim any right towards the suit schedule property. 6. Basing on the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property by dividing the same and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff? (ii) To what relief? 7. 6. Basing on the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property by dividing the same and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff? (ii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of defendant DW.1 to DW.3 were examined and Ex.B1 to B6 were marked. 8. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence as well as pleadings, dismissed the suit vide Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2019. The trial Court in its’ judgment made the following observations: “As can be seen from the present case facts also the lands are in the name of grandmother of plaintiff and defendant. No doubt the defendant was issued certificate under Ex.B-1 as an occupant of the Inam land. Since the plaintiff is the legal heir of Lakshmaiah and she also entitled for share in the property fell to the share of her father. The defendant filed Ex.B-2 to establish that he executed document in favour of his wife Kummari Lakshmi and her name was mutated in the revenue records and defendant also filed Ex. B-3 to show that he executed another document in favor of his first wife Bhagyamma by settling an extent of Ac:2-20 gts in Sy.No.215. As discussed above the lands in Sy.No.215. 216 and 220 & 222 are the lands of grand mother of plaintiff and after the death of their father plaintiff and defendant will have equal rights over the property, and the defendant cannot execute any document in favour of any person by ignoring the share of plaintiff. The defendant can execute any document to the extent of his share but not the share of plaintiff. Though the defendant contended that he gave amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff relinquished her right, no evidence was educed by him to establish the same.” “[15] It is settled law that "the possession of co-heir is in law treated as possession of all the co-heirs. If one co-heir has become in possession of the properties, it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. If one co-heir has become in possession of the properties, it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. A co-heir in possession cannot render its possession adverse to other co-heirs not in possession, merely by any secret hostile animus on his part, in derogation of title on his other co-heirs. Though the plaintiff has not filed any other document, the only document filed by her establishes that her grandmother is original owner of the suit schedule properties. No document is filed by the defendant to establish that he purchased the lands in Sy.No.220 & 222. In view of above decision and in view of the above discussion this court has no hesitation to hold that on mere ground that possession certificate was issued in favor of defendant in respect of ancestral property he cannot deny the right of plaintiff to get a share in the property.” 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2019, the defendant preferred appeal vide A.S.No.08 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad. 10. The first appellate Court being final Court on facts reappreciated the evidence and the material placed on record and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree vide O.S.No.290 of 2007, dated 03.12.2019. In the impugned judgment the first appellate court made the following observations: “23. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record and the testimony of PWI coupled with the recitals under Ex.Al and the admission of DW3 in his cross-examination that the suit lands are ancestral lands of the plaintiff and defendant, in the absence of any contrary material adduced by the defendant to disprove the contents of Ex.Al in which the name of Kistamma is shown as the Pattedhar and possessor of the petition schedule lands and as the defendant has failed to answer a question as to who was the owner of the suit lands prior to the year 1999, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the suit schedule lands owned and possessed by Kammari Kistamma who is the grandmother of the plaintiff and the defendant and thus they are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendant. Further, the claim of the defendant that he gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff for relinquishing her share in the suit schedule properties in his favour has not been substantiated by any plausible evidence, muchless any registered relinquishment deed in respect of the immovable property pertaining to the share of the plaintiff and this unsubstantiated contention on his behalf also reinforces the fact that the defendant has admitted the share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties.” “Though the defendant as DWI claimed that he has obtained ORC in his name under Ex.B1 in respect of the suit schedule properties but in view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in N. Padmamma's case (cited supra) when the plaintiff is also one of the legal heirs of late Kammari Kistamma, and as such granting of ORC under Ex.B1 in favour of the appellant/defendant shall be treated for the benefit of all the legal heirs left behind by late Kistamma and hence the defendant alone cannot claim exclusive right over the suit schedule properties to the exclusion of the plaintiff.” “Thus, Exs.B2 and B3 which are executed by the appellant/defendant in favour of his wife and also in favour of his first wife Bagyamma respectively cannot be held to be binding on the plaintiff when Ex.B1 itself cannot confer any right or title over the defendant exclusively in respect of the suit lands to the exclusion of the plaintiff.” 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though respondent/plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence, except filing certified copies of pahanies for the year 1995-96 to substantiate her claim, the trial Court as well as first appellate Court erroneously decreed the suit. He further contended that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties as plaintiff herself has contended that the property belongs to the grandmother of plaintiff and defendant and has failed to join the legal heirs of late Kistamma and this aspect was not properly appreciated by the both the Courts. He further contended that the Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued in favour of the appellant by the authorities and therefore, the appellant alone succeeded to the suit property. He further contended that the Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued in favour of the appellant by the authorities and therefore, the appellant alone succeeded to the suit property. However, both the Courts have erroneously held that the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in favour of the appellant/defendant shall be treated as the certificate issued for the benefit of legal heirs of late Kammari Kistamma. 12. A perusal of the record would disclose that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties and both the Courts have categorically held that the properties in the suit are ancestral properties and that the appellant/defendant and respondent/plaintiff are equally entitled to suit schedule property. The trial Court as well as first appellate Court have held that the Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued in favour of appellant/defendant cannot be treated for the benefit of an individual and the same has to be construed, as issued for the benefit of the legal heirs of late Kistamma, therefore, the appellant/defendant cannot claim exclusive right over the suit schedule property. 13. It is apt to mention that the trial Court while deciding the Judgment, referred to and relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivappa Tammannappa Kuraban v. Parasappa Hanamappa and other reported in [1995 Supp (1) SCC 162], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that merely because the Occupancy rights Certificate was issued in favour of one individual, the properties cannot loose character of joint family properties and the same shall be treated as for the benefit of the legal heirs of the said property. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C. 15. It is well settled principle supported by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that, in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings on facts arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 16. It is well settled principle supported by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that, in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings on facts arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 16. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , [(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546] , the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting on a Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration. 17. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings of the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the ground raised by the Appellant is factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. 18. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.