JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. This matter is listed for consideration of I.As’ and those IAs’ are allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insisted this Court to hear the matter on merits since the FDP is filed before the Trial Court and date is fixed for the consideration tomorrow and hence this Court heard the matter on merits also regarding admission of the second appeal. 2. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the schedule property in O.S.No.542/2012 contended that one Sannegowda was the propositus of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff Nos.3 to 6 and defendants are the children of said Sannegowda and plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 are the wives of other two sons of Sannegowda who are no more, the said Sannegowda had 8 children out of which six sons and 2 daughters. The said Sannegowda died and his wife Puttamma also died long back and the said Sannegowda was a tenant in respect of suit schedule properties under the landlord Sri.Krishnashetty and Smt.Jayalakshmama and has filed the declaration claiming occupancy rights under the provisions of Land Reforms Act and before grant of occupancy rights, the said Sannegowda died and plaintiffs and defendants being the legal heirs of the said Sannegowda are cultivating the suit schedule properties and plaintiffs have authorized the defendants to appear before the concerned authority and represent the case for the sake of convenience. As such defendant No.1 on behalf of his family appeared before the concerned authority and the authorized officer and the Deputy Commissioner for Tenancy claims by their order dated 21.09.2011 granted the suit schedule land under Section 77 of the Land Reform Act in the name of the first defendant. 3. It is also contented that properties were granted in the name of the 1 st defendant and the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 have also got right over the suit schedule properties as their father was tenant in respect of the suit schedule property and filed declaration seeking occupancy rights. Hence the plaintiff contend that they have equal rights in the suit schedule properties. Hence the plaintiff contend that they have equal rights in the suit schedule properties. But, the 1 st defendant with malafide intention got the katha changed into his name in respect of suit schedule property attempting to alienate the suit schedule property to the 3 rd parties and when the demand was made for the partition and separate possession of their share in respect of the suit schedule properties by causing legal notice, he did not come forward to give share and hence filed the suit. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement and got amended the written statement during the trial. The defendant No. 1 has admitted the relationship between the parties to the suit, but he contend that his father died on 15.09.1993 and prior to death of his father, his children were separated and resided separately by taking their share in the properties and their marriage was performed prior to the death of his father. Hence the defendant No.1 has contended that plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over suit schedule property. Further contended that application seeking occupancy rights and after 6 to 7 years from the date of death of his father on 08.01.1999, he filed an application in respect of schedule properties seeking occupancy rights on 21.09.2011, the concerned authority has granted the same in respect of the suit schedule properties and hence he contended that it is his self acquired properties and the plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule properties and also contended that he invested more than Rs.20,00,000/- for the development of the suit schedule properties and with an intention to knock off the suit schedule properties from the defendant No.1 that plaintiffs have filed the suit and except the suit schedule properties, no other properties and as per the orders passed by the Land Reforms Act and other order passed by the Karnataka Land Tribunal, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, the defendant became the absolute owner of the schedule properties and hence he contended that they are not having any right. The defendant No.2 also appeared and filed a written statement contending that all the children of defendant No.1 were separated prior to his death and the plaintiffs have no right over the schedule properties. The defendant No.2 also appeared and filed a written statement contending that all the children of defendant No.1 were separated prior to his death and the plaintiffs have no right over the schedule properties. Further, contended that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs and also contend that sites, houses and lands stand in the name of the plaintiffs associated at Chikkakondagola village were not included in the present case and said properties are also the properties of all the family members. Hence, conviction tend that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. 4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties that there was a partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants as contended by defendant No.1 and also the contention raised by the defendant regarding self-acquired property, issue Nos.2 to 5 are framed regarding non-inclusion of property and non- joinder of necessary parties and the same are also taken note of and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and also comes to the conclusion that there was already a partition between the family and also comes to the conclusion that there is a clear admission on the part of P.W.1 and D.W.1 that earlier there was a partition in respect of the other properties, but in respect of the property that is schedule property there was no any partition and also taken note of the document of Ex.D.9 which was confronted by the counsel for defendant and discussion was made that the document of Ex.D.8 will not create any right in favour of the defendant and hence granted the relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule properties. The same is also challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.26/2021. The same is also challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.26/2021. The Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that schedule properties are joint family properties and also whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that occupancy right has been confirmed in the name of 1 st defendant with respect to schedule properties and on behalf of the joint family and also whether the document Ex.D.8 is necessary to enable this Court to pronounce the judgment in this appeal and all these points are formulated by the Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo and First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered the point Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative that Trial Court considering the material available on record comes to the conclusion that property is amenable for partition and answered the point No.3 as negative with regard to the Ex.D.8 in coming to the conclusion that Ex.D.8 will not confer any right in respect of the rights of the parties are concerned in paragraph No.26 of the judgment while answering the point No.3, detailed discussion was made that the document Ex.D.8 nowhere helpful to the appellants for deciding the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgment of both the Courts, present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in declining to accept the case of the appellant that the same is a self acquired property of the appellant. The counsel would submits that Ex.D.8 is very clear that all of them have given consent in respect of the property and also counsel would vehemently contend that in pursuance of the grant made in favour of defendant No.1, he cultivated the property and invested the money and the same was also not taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The very approach of both the Courts is erroneous. 6. The very approach of both the Courts is erroneous. 6. The counsel also in his argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error in when the plaintiff P.W.1 made the admission that there was an earlier partition between the family in the year 2007 and ought not to have granted the relief and also counsel would vehemently contend that Ex.D.8 consent letter executed by the respondents with respect to the suit properties are concerned are ignored and hence on these two aspects this Court has to frame a substantive question of law. 7. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the Trial Court in detail taken note of both the documents of Ex.D.8 and comes to the conclusion that the same will not confer any right to the parties in respect of the immovable properties are concerned. The counsel would vehemently contend that in paragraph No.26, the Trial Court taken note of Section 24 of Right to tenant to be heritable: where a tenant dies, the landlord shall be deemed to have continued the tenancy to the heirs of such tenant on the same terms and conditions on which such tenant was holding at the time of his death. The counsel vehemently contend that it is not in dispute that the tenancy rights was claimed by the father and father subsequently passed away and also a fresh application is given by the defendant No.1 and the tenancy right is confirmed only in favour of the family and not in favour of the defendant No.1 and all these aspects was taken note of by the Trial Court. 8. The counsel also would vehemently contend that that while answering the very contention of the parties, taken note of regarding admission in paragraph No.37, both P.W.1 and D.W.1 clearly admits that there was already a partition and the same is in respect of the other properties and not in respect of the suit schedule property. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court and Appellate Court by considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, question of framing any substantive question of law doesn't arise and all the factual issue and also the right given to the parties has been considered both on facts as well as question of law by the Appellate Court. Hence, question of granting substantive question of law in admitting and framing substantive question of law doesn't arise. 9. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents, it is not in dispute that father had filed a tenancy application in respect of the suit schedule property and also it is not in dispute that subsequent to the filing of an application father died and thereafter defendant No.1 made an application before the concerned authority claiming tenancy right is also not in dispute and when the schedule property is a tenanted property and also the admission given by P.W.1 and D.W.1 is very clear that at the time of earlier partition they have divided all the joint family properties but no any division in respect of the suit schedule properties and subsequently the grant is made in favour of defendant No.1. The contention of defendant No.1 that it is a self acquired property since grant was made in his favour, but when the material clearly discloses that father was a tenant and subsequently tenancy right was conferred in favour of one of the family members and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court particularly in paragraph No.26 as well as the admission is also taken note of in paragraph No.35 regarding earlier partition and though the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there was an earlier partition by answering issue No.2 taken note of this property was not subject matter of earlier partition and though contend that other properties are not included but the fact is that earlier there was a partition between the family members in respect of other family properties were available, but in respect of this property is concerned, subsequent right was granted that is tenancy right was granted and hence, filed the suit. When such being the material on record, the very contention of the appellant’s counsel cannot be accepted. 10. When such being the material on record, the very contention of the appellant’s counsel cannot be accepted. 10. The other contention in respect of the document Ex.D.8 also both the Courts have taken note of with regard to the admissibility of document Ex.D.8 and the same is marked as a consent letter and the document is not a registered document and in terms of document Ex.D.8, no question of any relinquishment of any right by any of the parties and the same is also not admissible and the same is discussed by both the Courts regarding the validity of the document also. When such material is considered by both the Courts and the Appellate Court also having considered the factual aspects as well as question of law, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law on the admission of P.W.1 as well as Ex.D.8 as contented by the appellant’s counsel and the same has been met by both the Courts and when such being the case, I do not find any ground and no material on record to admit and frame any substantive question of law as contented by the appellant’s counsel. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER Second Appeal is dismissed.