( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the 4th defendant questioning the order of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, passed in I. A,no,2084 of 1978 in O. S No,11 of 1972 dated 24th June, 1981.

( 2 ) THAT suit was filed by the two plaintiffs for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 30 equal shares and for allotment and separate possession of one share to each of them and for rendition of accounts by the 1st defendant till the date of delivery of possession of she properties.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs father, late Kurella Venkata Raju, his brother the 2nd defendant and their father, the 1st defendant constituted members of a Hindu Joint Co-parcenary family owning plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff s father late Venkata Raju died on 29th May, 1957. His first wife has pre-deceased him, leaving behind the plaintiffs as her only daughters. He took the 3rd defendant as his second wife and bore (he 4th defendant, a son, and the 5th defendant, a daughter. On the ground that the defendants refused to give them their share, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition.

( 4 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement and it was adopted by his son the 2nd defendant. They admitted the relationship, but they pleaded that in 196a the 3rd defendant raised disputes on behalf of the 4th defendant to effect partition, and accordingly, the 1st defendant effected partition of the properties and partition lists were prepared on 12th july, 1969, which were signed by Defendants 1 and 2 end the 3rd defendant, on behalf of the 4th defendant. In addition It is stated that bigger shares were allotted to the father of the plaintiffs and to the 2nd defendant as the debts binding on the family were agreed to be discharged by defandants 2 and 4. Since then they have been in separate possession and enjoyment of the respective propeities that have fallen to their share.

( 5 ) THE 4th defendant filed a separate witten statement which was adoptad by defendants 3 and 5. He alto stated that there was a partition in the family in 1969 and he had discharged the joint family debts. In addition he stated that the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights in the family properties as per the arrangement made by the mediators.

( 6 ) ON a consideration of the evidence the learned Subordinate judge held that there was partition of the family properties on 12th July 1969, as pleaded by the defendants. He found that the plaintiffs did not relinquish their shares in the joint family properties as pleaded by the 4th defendant- He held the partition effected in the absence of the plaintiffs without giving then any share is a nullity and not binding upon the plaintiffs. He held that there were no binding debts to be discharged. Finally he decreed the suit directing partition of the plaint schedule proparties into 30 equal shares and allotment and separate possession of one such share to each of the plaintiffs. The future mesne profits were directed to be determined on a separate application. The rest of the suit claim was dismissed, but without costs.

( 7 ) NO appeal was filed against that decree. Therefore it has become final,

( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the plaintiffs filed I. A. No. 1029/1974 for passing of a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree, and to ascertain the profits. Sri. J. Jagannadha Sastri, Vakil, was appointed as Commissione to partition the properties and ascertainment of the profits. He submitted a report. Evidently he craved out the shares of the plaintiffs out of the share that fell to Venkata Raju in 1969. Thereafter no further steps were taken for passing a final decree in terms of that report.

( 9 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, defendants 1 and 2 filed I. A Nos 2084 and 2085/ 1975 to appoint a Commissioner to partition the properties by metes and bounds and allotment of 10 shares as per the preliminary decree and also to grant past and future profits as against defendants 3 and 5. The 4th defendant contested that petition by stating that the pre