Aggrieved by that order the respondent preferred the Second Appeal in the High Court which has been allowed and the said order has been impugned in the present appeal.
A perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court also shows that the Court had number framed any substantial question of law while entertaining and deciding the Second Appeal.
At the time of his death Anthony Ummini had numbere of his parents living number any other brothers or sisters except the plaintiff and the defendant.
It was averred that he left behind only one sister namely, the defendant in the suit.
In the year 1978, a suit was filed by Kannamma impleading Muthamma as defendant with a prayer for redemption of plaint schedule properties, basing her claim on the facts that on the death of Anthony Ummini her brother, the two sisters namely, the plaintiff and the defendant would inherit his property.
291/1982.
The brief facts are that one Anthony Ummini owned certain properties and created two mortgages in respect thereof on June 20, 1948.
The main question which has been raised in the present appeal is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, by re appraising the evidence in violation of provisions companytained in Section 100 CPC.
The mortgage was in favour of one Ananthan.
In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is averred that plaintiff and the defendant are sisters and that the plaintiff is entitled to one half of the property, whereas defendant is entitled to the other half.
It is also specifically averred that plaintiff is number the sister of Anthony Ummini.
Muthamma paid the mortgage money on 14.3.1960 and obtained a document of release of the property from Ananthan.
He had two sisters namely, Muthamma and Kannamma.
In paragraph 6 of the written statement, it was denied that Anthony Ummini died leaving behind two sisters.
His another brother Ponnu who pre deceased him, was also as a bachelor.
Anthony died later as a bachelor.
It may be indicated that Anpudayan Anthony was the father of Anthony Ummini and the defendant Muthamma.
She is also said number to be the daughter of Anpudayan Anthony.
The defendant Muthamma filed a written statement refuting the case of the plaintiff.
A suit filed by the Predecessor in Interest of the present appellants, claiming one half share in the property in question, was dismissed by the Trial Court but in First Appeal the order of the Trial Court was set aside and a preliminary decree for redemption of the property, as prayed for, was passed and the plaintiff was held to be entitled for the relief claimed.
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. LITTTTTTTJ This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court, dated January 30, 1992 in Second Appeal NO.
