A common judgment is necessitated by the fact that the three appeals and cross objections arise out of judgment dated 16.12.1989 in O.S.No.119 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The sole appellant in A.S.No.558 of 1990 is second defendant in the suit. The appellant in other two appeals is fifth defendant in the suit and was also fifth respondent in the final decree proceedings, aggrieved by which he filed A.S.No.1267 of 1998 and A.S.No.13 of 2005. For the sake of convenience the appellants and the respondents are referred to by their status in the suit.

3. Muramalla Narayanamurthy was hereditary village carpenter of Alamuru Village. He was owner and possessor of various extents of agricultural land totally admeasuring about 7 to 8 acres comprised in various survey numbers situated at Alamuru, Edida and Mandapeta Villages. He was also owner of a tiled house at Alamuru Village. He and his wife Ganiraju (first defendant) were issueless. Therefore, both of them adopted Muramalla Ammannaraju (plaintiff) on 20.03.1946 and an adoption deed was duly registered on 07.10.1946. Adopted son-plaintiff; and Narayanamurthy constituted joint family and remained undivided. It appears that after death of Narayanamurthy, Gollavalli Ramakrishnamurthy (second defendant) also claimed to be the adopted son of Narayanamurthy under another registered adoption deed dated 12.04.1969. He allegedly inducted defendant Nos.3 to 7 as tenants. The plaintiff demanded delivery of possession, in vain. The tenants also refused to pay the makta. In this background the plaintiff filed the suit for partition, eviction, possession and mesne profits. He prayed for partition of suit schedule properties into four equal shares and allotment three shares to him and one share to his adopted mother. Defendant Nos.2, 5 and 13 filed written statements. Be it noted that defendant No.13 was subsequently impleaded. He is younger brother of fourth defendant. Their father Somacharyulu is brother of Narayanamurthy.The averments made in the written statements filed by defendant Nos.2 and 13 are almost similar. Both of them deny plaintiff's adoption and his claim for entire suit schedule properties. They further allege that Narayanamurthy executed registered settlement deed on 19.03.1946 conveying items 5 and 6 of plaint A schedule property to them. Second defendant, as noticed supra, set up adoption and relied on registered adoption deed dated 12.04.1969. It is his further case that after death of Narayanamurthy, plaint A and B schedule properties except items 5 and 6 of plaint A schedule devolved on him by reason of his adoption. He, therefore, opposed partition.

4. Fifth defendant contested the case all along. He set up title in himself alleging that items 11 to 13 of plaint A schedule property situated at Edida Village have had been in possession of himself as well as his forefathers for over 70 to 80 years and that they are entitled to the property in their own right. He also denied that he is a tenant of Narayanamurthy and did not accept the adoption of the plaintiff.

5. The trial Court framed six main issues and two additional issues. Important of them are the issues 1 to 4. These involved consideration of the controversy as to whether the plaintiff and second defendant are adopted sons of Narayanamurthy and whether the plaintiff's claim for items 11 to 13 claimed by fifth defendant is barred by time. The other question is with regard to items 5 and 6, which were allegedly conveyed by Narayanamurthy under a registered settlement deed dated 19.03.1946 in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 13.

6. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A16. P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined to corroborate his evidence. Second defendant examined himself as D.W.1. He marked 10 documents besides producing D.Ws.2 and 3. Fifth defendant after filing written statement did not prosecute his case. He remained set ex parte. Ex.A1 is registered adopti