The plaintiff in O.S.No.162 of 1984 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal, filed this second appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 are his brothers.

2. The appellant filed the suit initially, against his father and two brothers, for partition of the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, his father died and since his estate is represented by the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 herein, no other individuals were added as parties.

3. The appellant pleaded that the joint family, comprising of himself and his brothers, is possessed of 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and in spite of his repeated requests, the respondents did not effect partition. The 1st respondent herein remained ex parte in the suit. The suit was contested by the 2nd respondent alone. He pleaded that there was a partition of the joint family properties in the year 1973 and that a list of partition was prepared on 30.04.1973. He further pleaded that subsequent to the partition, certain adjustments of shares has also taken place among the co-parceners and thereafter, the parties are enjoying their respective shares of properties.

4. The trial Court accepted the plea of prior partition and dismissed the suit on 27.12.1989, as regards plaint 'A' and 'B schedule properties but passed a preliminary decree for 'C' schedule properties. Thereupon, the appellant filed A.S.No.37 of 1990 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The appeal was dismissed on 20.01.1997. Hence, this Second Appeal.

5. Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the so-called list of partition was not registered and even the un-registered document was not placed before the Court. He contends that whenever a document is relied upon, no oral evidence can be allowed in support of thereof. In support of his contention, the learned counsel places reliance upon several Judgments, including the one in P.V.Subba Rao vs. J.Kesava Rao1. He submits that once the plea of prior partition becomes unacceptable, there does not exist any alternative, except to direct the partition of the suit schedule properties.

6. Though the 1st respondent is served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance.

7. Sri T.Jagdish, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that his client has not only deposed as a witness, but also has examined the scribe as well as elderly persons, who took part in the partition of the properties. He further submits that there is ample documentary evidence also, in the form of entries in pahanies, revenue records etc., to support the plea of prior partition. He pleads that the custodian of the document viz., the father of the parties herein, died during the pendency of the suit and thereby, the document was not available to be produced before the Court.

8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed four issues as under: 1. Whether the parties effected a partition on 30-4-1973 and the parties are in possession of their respective shares as mentioned by the defendant No.3 in his written statement? 2. Whether there was a re-adjustment of shares in shares inagricultural lands in 1974 as mentioned by defendant No.3 in his written statement? 3. Whether the third defendant purchased 10 acres of land in item Nos.2 to 5 of schedule 'B' are his self acquired properties? If so what is its effect? 4. Whether the suit for partial partition is not maintainable?

9. The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and four more witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 to 5. He filed Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. On dismissal of the suit, the appellant filed the appeal. The lower appellate Court did not frame any points, as such, for its consideration, but proceeded to discuss all the issues framed by the trial Court, as well as the fi