ARNI RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. ARNI SULOCHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel.

(2.) Sri Subba Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out to the substantial questions of law raised by him in the Second Appeal and would submit that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the following substantial question of law, in substance, would arise for consideration: Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below relating to oral partition and factum of possession be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case? The learned Counsel in all fairness would submit that all other questions which had been formulated in the grounds of Second Appeal virtually in substance would boil down to the said question referred to supra. The learned counsel had taken this court through the findings recorded by both the Courts below and had pointed out that the evidence available on record had not been appreciated in proper perspective and this can be taken as a substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal.

(3.) On the contrary Sri Krishna Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent would point out that in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the question of factum of possession, this being a question of fact, the same need not be disturbed in this Second Appeal.