The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, filed the present appeal aggrieved by the decree and judgment made by the learned Judge, dated 29-7-1988, dismissing the suit with costs and directing the plaintiff to pay the Court fee on the plaint.

2. The suit was instituted as an indigent person praying for the relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties delivery of possession, future profits and the other reliefs.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, on the strength of the respectively pleadings of the parties having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, D.Ws.1 to 5, marked Exs.A1 to A7, Exs.B 1 to B 16 and Ex.C 1 and came to the conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for and ultimately, dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

4. Heard the learned Counsel on record and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

5. Sri Subhash Chandra Bose, learned Counsel representing the appellantplaintiff, had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and wouldd contend that erroneous findings had been recorded relating to the status of the plaintiff in the context of whether the plaintiff is the son of the deceased father or not. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Ex.Al and would contend that the findings recorded by the learned Judge in the light of Ex. B 16 in this regard, cannot be sustained, especially, in the light of the voluminous oral evidence available on record in relation to the relationship. The learned Counsel also would submit that even the findings recorded by the learned Judge on the question of limitation are vague findings and in the light of the evidence available on record adduced on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, the learned Judge should have arrived at the conclusion that the suit is within limitation.

6. Per contra, Sri Jithender Rao, learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents-defendants, would maintain that in the light of the clear evidence of D.Ws.1 to 5 and also the voluminous documentary evidence Exs.B 1 to B16, it is clear that the very status of the appellant-plaintiff had not been proved. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would submit that the present suit cannot be said to be within the period of limitation either under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter for short referred as “the Act”) or under Article 109 of the Act. The Counsel also relied on certain decisions. Hence, the learned Counsel would contend that the findings are to be confirmed and the appeal to be dismissed.

7. The parties hereinafter for the purpose of convenience would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.107 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kakinada.

8. The plaintiff filed the suit as an indigent person claiming the relief of partition. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is the son of the first defendant, and his father late Suryanarayana was unhealthy and was not worldly-wise man and the first defendant is his wife. The plaintiff was born on 18.9.1955 and his father died in the year 1957. It was also pleaded that the plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff as well, and thus, the plaintiff is having share in all the plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties. It was further pleaded that the plaint schedule properties are in possession of defendant Nos.2 to 4. The father of the plaintiff became a pawn in the hands of his mother Ammanna, who died on 26.10.1980 and she managed to get some document executed by her son with regard to the family properties and they are benami transactions and never intended to be acted upon. It was also pleaded that Ammanna made her son to execute a settlement deed, dated 20.1.19