( 1 ) THE unsuccessful 1st defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in O. S. No. 104/82 on the file of Subordinate judge, Narsapur, in relation to certain items of the plaint schedule property, had preferred the present Appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 in the Appeal are the plaintiffs in the suit and respondents 3 and 4 are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for partition on the ground that they are the sons of 2nd defendant and defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers and sons of the 1st defendant. It was pleaded that at the time of the 2nd defendant s marriage with the mother of the plaintiffs the latter s father presented her an amount of rs. 30,000/- towards Pasupu Kumkuma as per tradition and custom in the family and gave the said sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 to the 2nd defendant for improvement and for purchasing lands in the name of Neelaveni. Thereafter with the said amount and other amounts given to her, the 2nd defendant purchased lands in the name of the plaintiffs mother and the 2nd defendant was managing the same on behalf of his wife and defendants 1 and 2 have been pressurizing the mother of the plaintiffs to convey the said land in favour of the 2nd defendant for which she was not willing and the 2nd defendant also took gold waist belt weighing 15 sovereigns from the plaintiffs mother and pledged the same with the State bank of India and obtained a loan of rs. 6,500/- and further the 2nd defendant also took the gold chain of the plaintiffs mother weighing 11 sovereigns and obtained loan of Rs,2,500/- from the State bank of India and the 2nd defendant represented that with the said loan amounts he would purchase Ac. 0-50 cents of land from his sister in the name of the plaintiffs mother and accordingly he purchased the land in the name of the plaintiffs mother and the sale deed is yet to be executed and registered in the name of the plaintiffs mother. As the plaintiffs mother was not willing to convey the lands in favour of the 2nd defendant, feelings gradually strained between them and the 2nd defendant came to Yelamanchililanka in January, 1981 for sankranthi and took the plaintiffs mother to chinchinada on 19-1-1981 and on 21-1-1981 the entire family left for Tirupathi and returned to Chinchinada on 23-1-1981 and after returning from Tirupathi, the defendants 1 and 2 began compelling the plaintiffs mother to convey the land in favour of the 2nd defendant but she refused and she was also demanded to return the jewellery after redeeming them for which the defendants 1 and 2 beat her on 28-1-1981 and drove her out with the plaintiffs and therefore she returned to their maternal grandfather s house at Yelamanchililanka. After that, the defendants 1 and 2, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs brought into existence fraudulently a partition under the registered partition deed dated 24-2-1981 and in that partition the plaintiffs are not represented and some of the properties shown as Items 1 to 9 in the A schedule are left out of the partition perhaps on the plea that the said Items are the self-acquired properties of the 1st defendant. But all the properties are the joint family properties acquired with the joint family nucleus and with joint exertions of the defendants who are always treating them as joint family property and are brought into common hotchpotch and as the 1st defendant happened to be the father and kartha of the family the properties are purchased in his name. But, the said properties are only purchased with the joint family and always treated as joint family property and they are jointly cultivated and the income is jointly enjoyed. Similarly the property settled on the 1st defendant is also brought into common hotchpotch and is being treated and enjoyed as joint family property and in order to cause detriment to the interests of the minor plaintiffs, the defendants 1 to 3 left out the said Items of A schedule an