This appeal by the appellants-defendants 3 and 4 under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20.3.1991, in O.S. No.7 of 1988, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Miryalaguda, whereunder and whereby preliminary decree was passed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the plaint 'A' schedule lands.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff being minor represented by his mother Gouru Shakuntala filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties on the ground that he is entitled to half share and that the registered partition deed No.1 126/65, dated 24.7.1965, does not bind the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is a stepmother and the 2nd defendant is the father of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiffs mother Shakuntala was married to 2nd defendant after enforcement of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') in the presence of 1st defendant (first wife) alive, the plaintiff shall be deemed to be the legitimate son of the 2nd defendant in view of the marriage Amendment Laws of 1976.

The plaintiff was born on 10.4.1966. The plaintiff shall be deemed to have acquired a co-parcenary interest in the ancestral properties of the 2nd defendant when he was conceived in his mother's womb. The plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule agricultural lands were originally held by the 2nd defendant's father late Gouru Gurvaiah and subsequently devolved upon the 2nd defendant consequent on the death in the year 1949 and therefore, they were the ancestral properties and the plaintiff acquired co-parcenary interest.

On 24.7.1965 defendants 1 and 2 colluded together and brought into existence a collusive registered partition deed No.1126/ 65 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Miryalaguda with false recitals, allotting plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule lands to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant and also parted with the possession of the land in favour of the 1st defendant. Though the 1st defendant a member of the joint family of 2nd defendant, she is not a coparcener and she never had any right in the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Therefore, the said document is inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff. The 1st defendant shall be deemed to have acquired only the interest on the 2nd defendant in the plaint schedule lands and thus, the 2nd defendant got only half share and the plaintiff is entitled to half share. Hence the suit.

4. The 2nd defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship inter se and stated that he married Shakuntala, mother of the plaintiff at Wadapalli in Laxminarasimha Swamy Temple on 20.5.1963 according to the customs prevailing in their community. The plaintiff is the legitimate son of 2nd defendant. He also admits plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule lands are the ancestral properties of 2nd defendant. He also admits that the plaintiff is the co-parcener. With regard to registered document between the defendants 1 and 2, his contention is that it is not a collusive ' one. As the 2nd defendant did not begot male child even after passing of 25 years and to continue his line of family, the 2nd defendant wanted to marry the mother of the plaintiff. Therefore, the 1st defendant agreed to give her consent for the marriage of 2nd defendant with the mother of the plaintiff. Even the 2nd defendant was prepared to give half share to the 1st defendant in order to obtain consent of the 1st defendant for second marriage of the 2nd defendant with the mother of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant agreed to give half share in the ancestral property. Therefore, he prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendants 3 and 4 who are the contesting parties stated that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Mother of late Anthamma is a proper' and necessary party. Plaintiff, Shakuntala and 2nd defendant are in collusion and to defeat the rights of the