Narayanappa dead by L.Rs. (Lakshmamma Reddy and Redamma) and Devaraju vs Ramappa dead by L.Rs. (Venkatalakshmi dead by L.Rs. (Kamalamma, Srinivas Reddy, Girisha and Nagesh) and Others), Munivenkatamma dead by L.Rs. (Venkataswamy and Venkat Reddy), Seethamma dead by L.Rs. (Narayanswamy and Venkat Reddy) and Naremma dead by L.Rs. (Chowdamma Reddy and Ramakrishna Reddy)

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The present appeal is filed against concurrent findings of fact by both the courts below. The substantial questions of law that are sought to be raked are as follows:

Whether the first appellate court is justified in deciding the appeal R.A. 16/2005 without considering the application of the Appellants/Defendants filed under Order XXXXI Rule 27 of the CPC seeking permission to produce relevant documents as additional evidence in support of their case?

Whether the findings of the courts below regarding the issue as to whether the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Plaintiff was enjoying the suit schedule properties upto January, 1989, are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record?

Whether the inferences drawn and the conclusions arrived at by the courts below are erroneous and resulted in miscarriage of justice?

Whether the courts below are justified in accepting the case of the Plaintiff for partition even though he was separately living in a different family in a different village for over 60 years prior to the filing of the suit?

As can be seen, the questions relate to findings of fact. Except the question, whether the application filed by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC was rejected off-hand without proper consideration by the lower Appellate court. The questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law.

As can be seen from para 33 of the judgment of the lower Appellate court, the same has been considered at length. There is no substance in the said substantial question of law. Even if the findings of fact are held to be erroneous, there are a catena of decisions of the Apex Court which have held that the High Court sitting in second appeal ought not to interfere unless there is a substantial question of law that would arise for consideration or if the courts below have proceeded in the face of material evidence that was available to arrive at a different conclusion. In the present case on hand, it is seen that both the courts below have addressed the material evidence and have formed their opinion. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration. The appeal is rejected.