( 1 ) THE plaintiffs, respondents 1 to 3 herein, filed the suit being O. S. No. 1059 of 1985 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition of plaint schedule properties. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 11-7-1990 passed a preliminary decree directing that plaint schedule properties shall be divided into 48 equal shares and 1/48th share shall be allotted to each of the plaintiffs, and each of defendants 1 to 4 shall be allotted 9/48th share. The trial Court also restrained defendants 1 to 5 from interfering with peaceful possession of the first plaintiff over item No. 2 of the plaint schedule. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the first defendant has filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) FIRST plaintiff is wife of one Narasimha, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are his daughters and defendants 1 to 5 are his sons. In brief it is the case of the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3 herein) that Rapolu Narasimha, husband of the first plaintiff and father of other parties to the suit died on 21-1-1977 at Lemur, Maheswaram Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. Item No. 1 of the plaint schedule is ancient house with five rooms with country-tiled roof bearing Panchayat No. 243 in an extent of 400 sq. yards in Lemur village, and item No. 2 of the plaint schedule is another house with Mangalore-tiled roof with four R. C. C. mulgies in an extent of 300 sq. yards situated at Madannapet, Hyderabad. Both these portions were purchased by his own earnings on 18-12-1958 and 22-2-1970 respectively, but Narasimha obtained sale deeds in the name of his eldest son first defendant (appellant herein) with the hope that he would look after the family. The first defendant, however, neglected the family and disputes arose among them. Item Nos. 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are self-acquired properties of Narasimha and first defendant is benamidar. They also alleged that as on the date of purchase of the property the first defendant has no means to buy the said properties and that it is only late Narasimha paid the money towards consideration out of his own earnings. They also alleged that subsequent to purchase, Narasimha invested amounts and improved item Nos. 1 and 2 of plaint schedule house and also the house which is item No. 2 after purchasing the site. Late Narasimha was receiving income from item No. 2 of the plaint schedule and after his death first defendant has been collecting the rents. In August/september 1985 the defendants hatched a plan to sell away item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property and appropriate proceeds therefrom by dispossessing first plaintiff from item No. 2. They made an attempt to dispossess the first plaintiff on 7-9-1985 in vain, when the elders intervened and stopped the defendants.

( 3 ) THE suit was opposed by the first defendant alleging that item Nos. 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are his own properties and that he purchased both items with his own money, that his parents and his brothers have nothing to do with the properties, that his father was only carpenter with meagre income and he was suffering from tuberculosis since 1961 which disabled him to earn any money, that by the date of purchase of item no. 1 on 18-2-1958 he was aged 18 years and earning money, that by the date of purchase of second item in 1970 he was a well-established Medical Practitioner, that his wife was also earning from tailoring work and that he had means to purchase items 1 and 2. He further alleged that he himself allowed the first plaintiff to stay in the house with his children who are staying in Hyderabad. Plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 have no right to claim partition.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 2, 4 and 5 filed a common written statement whereas the third defendant filed a separate written statement. All of them supported the plaint pleadings and prayed for partition of the property. They also further alleged that defendants 1 to 5 partitioned item No. 2 of the plaint schedule pro