Heard Sri Ramesh representing Sri S.V. Bhatt, the learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Srinivas representing Sri Dasaratha Reddy, the learned Counsel for respondent.

2. Both the Counsel made elaborate submissions taking this Court through the pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

3. Sri Ramesh, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had drawn the attention of this Court through the affidavit filed in support of the application C.M.P. No 18112/2000 wherein the relief for reception of additional evidence had been prayed for and would contend that these documents were available during the pendency of the suit, the Counsel had not filed the same and these documents are very essential to prove the factum of possession and hence, for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute, the matter may have to be remanded after receiving the additional evidence. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.

4. Sri Srinivas, the learned Counsel representing the respondent on the contrary had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Trial Court and would maintain that none of the contentions raised by the appellant-defendant had been established and the plea that certain items are the separate properties and also the plea of iliatom son-in-law had not been established and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence and also the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

6. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal:-

(1) Whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court are to be confirmed by this Appellate Court or liable to be disturbed, in any way?

(2) Whether the husband of appellant defendant is a necessary party to the suit?

(3) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties?

(4) Whether the husband of appellant defendant is the illatom son-in-law?

(5) Whether the application for reception of additional evidence in C.M.P. No. 18112/2000 to be allowed or dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the case?

(6) If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to?

7. Point Nos.1 to 3:- For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. It is needless to say that the unsuccessful defendant had preferred the present appeal.

8. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant are the real sisters and their father died about 20 years ago and their mother died on 5-11-1985, at the age of 70 years, and they are the only legal heirs to succeed the properties of their parents. It was also pleaded that the parties are Hindus, belonging to Mutharasi caste, governed by Mitakshira School of Hindu Law. It was also further pleaded that the owner and possessor of the plaint schedule properties is the late mother of the parties and she died intestate leaving behind the said properties and the parties had stepped into the foot steps of their late mother and have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. It was also further pleaded that they are entitled to equal shares Le., half share each in all the plaint schedule properties, It was also further pleaded that there are no loans incurred by late mother of the parties, and the plaint schedule immovable properties are free of encumbrances. That the original owner of item No.3 Le,. S.No.569 (which is locally known as Annaparayani Gunti) is Nomula Buchaiah. But the late mother of the parties has got the same in exchange of her land admeasuring Ac. 8-04 gts., out of S.No.896 situated at Jajireddygudem (which is locally known as Pandirigundu Chelka), such exchange was brought in, as the exchanged lands are convenient to the respective parties.

That even during the life time of their parents and more particularly after the death of their father, the parties have been a