( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the first defendant in O. S. No. 1 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. The first respondent - plaintiff filed O. S. No. 1 of 1997 for partition of the suit property into two equal shares between the plaintiff and the first defendant and to allot one such share to the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial court through its judgment dated 9-11-1998. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court preferred a. S. No. 3 of 1999 before the Additional district Judge, Adilabad. The appellate court allowed the appeal through the judgment dated 23-1-2002 by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreeing the suit as prayed for. The first defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court preferred this second appeal challenging the validity and legality of the decree granted by the first appellate Court.

( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up for admission before this Court, notice was ordered to the respondents 1 and 2 and the first respondent - first defendant made appearance through her counsel. The notice sent to the second respondent returned unserved. After hearing the parties, the matter is disposed of at the admission stage.

( 3 ) THE first respondent-plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant herein for partition of the suit schedule property into two equal shares and to put her in possession of one such share. The averments of the plaint are briefly as follows: the plaintiff and the first defendant are sisters. One Yedla Doddanna and gangamma were their parents. Their father doddanna died in 1976 intestate leaving the suit schedule house. It is the ancestral joint family property. Their mother Gangamma also died on 26-11 -1995. Their parents have no male issues. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the married daughters and they inherited the suit schedule house from their parents. The plaintiff is therefore, entitled to half share in the suit schedule house and demanded for the same. The first defendant denied to give half share in the suit property and sold part of the said property which is a vacant place measuring 40 x 30 feet to the second defendant. The first defendant is realizing rent from a Malgi, which is part of the suit house since more than 20 years without giving any share in the said income. Hence, this suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit house.

( 4 ) THE second respondent-second defendant remained ex parte in the suit proceedings.

( 5 ) THE first defendant filed a written statement with the following averments in brief: it is true that the plaintiff and the first defendant are the daughters of Yedla doddanna and Gangamma. There were no male issues to their parents. Therefore, their parents brought the husband of the first defendant by name Gaddam Asanna as an illatom son-in-law and gave the suit house as a consideration at the time of the marriage. Since then, the first defendant and her husband were in possession and enjoyment of the property. The husband of the first defendant died about 16 years prior to the suit, therefore, the first defendant and her children became the owners of the suit house. They are paying property tax and made improvements to the house. The suit house is neither ancestral nor joint Hindu family property. The plaintiff never demanded a share in the house except issuing a legal notice to create a cause of action for the suit and to extract money from the first defendant. The first defendant is in continuous possession of the property since more than 12 years, therefore, she perfected her title to the suit house by adverse possession. The suit it barred by limitation. The first defendant sold an open site admeasuring 12 x 24 ft. to one Shamshuddin about 15 years back and the said shamshuddin sold the property to the second defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

( 6 ) ON the bas