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