Appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 494 of 1987 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram. The respondent filed the suit, for the relief of partition of plaint A and B schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one share to him. He has also prayed for a direction for ascertainment of the mesne profits.

2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as under:

The father of the respondent, by name Bone Yerru Naidu, the husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, by name Boni Sat yam, and two others, by name Boni Tata and Boni Joginaidu, are brothers. The family held lands in Korukondapalem, Pinavemali and Attada Villages of Vizianagaram District. Yerru Naidu went as an illitom son-in-law to his father-in-laws house at Dharmavaram.

3. The respondent pleaded that there was a partition of the joint family properties among four brothers and the shares of his father Yerru Naidu and that of Boni Sat yam were kept in joint. It was alleged that in view of the fact that Yerru Naidu was residing at Dharmavaram, the joint properties of himself and Sat yam were entrusted to the letter for management. He pleaded that during his life time, Sat yam used to give half share of the produce, to Yerrunaidu, by cultivating the entire land, and after death of Sat yam, the first appellant managed the properties and used to pay the said amounts. Complaining that the first appellant has stopped payment of the amounts, and did not agree for partition, he filed the suit for the relief, referred to above.

4. On behalf of the appellants, a written statement was filed. They pleaded that the family partition took place sever~1 decades before the suit was filed, and at no point of time, the share of Yerru Naidu was entrusted for administration or management to Sat yam or the appellants. A further plea was raised to the effect that the first appellant executed a registered Will, in respect of the suit schedule property, in favour of appellants 2 and 3 and that the respondent attested the same and thereby, he is estopped from claiming the share in the said property. They also pleaded that the suit is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties and that it is not maintainable, even otherwise.

5. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree, as prayed for, through its judgment, dated 29-12-1992. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A. S. No.12 of 1993 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Vizinagaram. The appeal was dismissed on 07-04-1995. Hence, this Second Appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit was not maintainable, for more reasons than one. He contends that the respondent specifically pleaded that there was a partition among the four brothers, referred to above, but failed to prove that the partition was partial in nature or that the shares of his father and Boni Satyam were re-united. He further submits that the respondent was not clear, as to the nature of the rights of the parties; and the Courts below committed serious errors in law, in passing the preliminary decree and sustaining it.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client had specifically pleaded that a partition took place several decades ago, by keeping the shares of two brothers i.e. Yerru Naidu and Satyam, together, and therefore, the suit filed, in the present form, is proper. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants ere not clear, in their stand; be it, as regards the extent of shares in the partition or the nature of possession over the suit schedule properties. He further contends that a comparison of the holdings of the appellants, on the one hand, and that of the other two brothers, on the other, clearly demonstrates that late Sat yam was in possession of the shares of himself and that of the father of the respondent.

8. The trial Court framed the following five issues, on the basis of the pleadings before it.

1. Whether the plaintiff