( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the un-successful first defendant who died pending appeal and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were brought on record.

( 2 ) INTRODUCTION: The first respondent in the appeal, who is plaintiff in the suit filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and deliver possession of one such share to her and for rendition of accounts. The learned subordinate Judge, Rajam recorded the evidence of P. W. 1, D. Ws. 1 to 5, marked exs. A-1 and A-2 and Ex. B-1 to B-36 and ultimately granted a preliminary decree for partition. Hence, the appeal.

( 3 ) SUBMISSIONS of Sri Koka Raghava rao: Sri Koka Raghava Rao, learned counsel representing the appellants had taken this court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled and the evidence of P. W. 1 and D. Ws. 1 to 5 and would contend that the alleged settlement deed was never acted upon and by virtue of the relinquishment, the appellant/first defendant became the owner of all these properties and hence, the relief granted in favour of the plaintiff cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would contend that even, otherwise, in the light of the evidence of d. W. 3, inasmuch as the relinquishment of the shares had been established, granting the relief of partition even in favour of the other defendants, definitely, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would contend that the findings recorded by the learned Judge that inasmuch as there is no acceptable evidence placed on record relating to the date of death of Chandramma, it can be taken that all the parties would be entitled to the respective shares also cannot be sustained. The learned counsel made certain submissions in relation to the other oral and documentary evidence, which would go to show that the settlement deed was not yet and was not acted upon.

( 4 ) SUBMISSIONS of Sri Sreenivas: sri Sreenivas, learned counsel representing the first respondent/plaintiff would contend that the evidence of P. W. 1 is clear and categorical and the decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff even on the strength of the admissions made by D. W. 1 in the witness box and hence, the same need not be disturbed. The learned counsel, however, in all fairness would submit that except the evidence of D. W. 5, there is no other evidence available on record, seriously contesting or disputing the relinquishments. The learned counsel also would submit that the learned judge recorded a finding that inasmuch as the date of death of Chandramma is not clear, the validity of the relinquishment deeds need not be seriously considered. The learned counsel would contend that in the light of the findings recorded in detail, the judgment and decree of the trial court are liable to be confirmed.

( 5 ) POINTS for Consideration: The following points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (1) "whether the relief of partition granted infavour of the plaintiff needs to be disturbed in any way or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case: (2) Whether the relief of partition granted in favour of other defendants to be sustained or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case; (3) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to. "

( 6 ) POINT No. 1: The respective pleadings of the parties are as hereunder: "the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that patariapallychandramma, the maternal grand mother of the plaintiff had four daughters by names Iddum Balamani, yerra Kanthamani, Karra Kamaraju and dasari Amaravathi. The first defendant is one of the daughters of Chandramma. The plaintiff is the daughter of Yerra kanthamani. Defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of Karra Kamaraju. The fourth defendant is the daughter of d. Amaravathi. Chandramma is the daughter of Karra Veeramma. Chandramma as well as her mother veeramma, besides three daughters of chandramma, viz. , Kanthamani, kamaraju and Amaravathi died. Chandramma was deriving income by doing busin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document