( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and preliminary decree dated 31-8-1984 in O. S. No. 51 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the District Judge at Adilabad.

( 2 ) BY the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge held that the female sharers were not entitled to force the partition of joint family properties and that the houses in the suit schedule were ancestral properties. They could be partitioned only at the choice of the defendant who was the sole male heir. The learned Judge further held that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were entitled to 1/4th share each in the lands, houses and the movebles and directed a preliminary decree to be prepared accordingly.

( 3 ) THE appellant before this Court who was defendant in O. S. 51/81 has challenged the same by this appeal on several grounds such as - (1) Sy. No. 5/a of the schedule ought to have been held as the self acquired property of the defendant appellant and not liable for partition; (2) According to Pahanis A-1 to A-4, the land in Sy. No. 5/a stood in the name of Alluri Ram Reddy, who had nothing to do with the family of the parties to the suit and by no stretch of imagination the said property can be termed as ancestral land available for partition; (3) There was no basis for the trial Court to hold that Exs. B-2 to B-9 were got up for the purpose of the case; (4) The mere fact that the appellant was earning only Rs. 50 to Rs. 60 could not have been taken as insufficient for constructing houses in items 4, 6 and 7 by the lower Court; (5) No source of ancestral property was established to believe that the houses were ancestral properties; (6) The decree for partition was unsustainable in law.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the defendant - appellant submitted that the respondents were the step sisters who had married long back and, therefore, they could not have been in possession of the disputed property. He further submitted that while there could be a presumption of joint family in a given case, the fact of actual possession was required to be established, which the respondents miserably failed to prove. Further according to him, the Will ex. B-1 was proved and the respondents as daughters were each entitled to 1/3rd share only. After taking into account the father s share, it would be only 1/6 th each and not 1/2 share to them and 1/2 to the appellant as held by the trial Court.

( 5 ) THE trial Court raised the following issues: (1) Whether Item No. 3 i. e. , land bearing S. No. 5/a of Palsdhari and Item nos. 4, 6 and 7 and movable properties are the joint coparcenary properties of defendant and his father late Pedda Ramulu and liable for partition? (2) Whether late Pedda Ramulu executed a Will on 5-2-1980 bequeating his share in the coparcenary properties, in favour of defendant, if so, whether the same is true and binding on plaintiffs? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties and Court fee paid is proper? (4) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled?

( 6 ) THE plaintiffs case before the trial Court was that Plaintiff No. 2 was the sister of Plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant was their step brother. Their father s name was Pedda Ramulu. The defendant was the son of his first wife. Plaintiff No. l was the daughter of the second wife and Plaintiff No. 2 was the daughter of his third wife. All the three mothers had died. The father of the parties had 30 acres of land in three survey numbers. He had four houses bearing Nos. 4-10, 4-20, 4-18 and 4-19. The Sy. Numbers of the agricultural lands were 31-B dry measuring 11-39 guntas, S. No. 5-B dry measuring 6-32 guntas and S. No. 5-A dry measuring 10-00 acres. Their father also had one cart, one bufallo, three pairs of bullocks and one cow. He died 5 or 6 years before the suit was instituted. At the time of his death, he was in possession of all the aforementioned properties. The Plaintiff No. l got 1/4th share in the property. She demanded her share, but the defend