This revision is directed against the order dated 27-8-2009 passed in O.S.No.89 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge overruled the objection with regard to admissibility of the document dated 21-05-1990 and marked the same as Ex.B-1.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule property. The relief sought for in the suit read as hereunder:-

a) That a preliminary decree may be passed by partitioning the suit schedule property by declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to a total share of 1/3rd in the plaint schedule property and accordingly the Defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/3rd and Defendant No.2 and 3 are entitled to 1/3rd share

b) A commissioner may be appointed for the purpose of affecting the division of the suit property and the learned Commissioner so appointed by the Honble Court may be directed to effect the division of property in accordance with the respective shares of the parties by keeping in view of the bad and good nature of soil and Market value of the property

c) After the property is divided into shares as mentioned above the plaintiff may be put in her respective 1/3rd share;

d) After the plaintiff is put in her allotted share separately a final decree may be passed accordingly".

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is her junior paternal uncle and defendants 2 and 3 are daughter and wife respectively of another junior paternal uncle, by name Pasham Shiva Reddy. The suit schedule property is an ancestral property and therefore, she is entitled to 1/3rd share. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff along with defendants is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has been receiving agricultural produce towards her share towards the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 till recent past. Paragraph 5 of the plaint needs to be noted and it is thus:

" The plaintiff submits that from the last one year-the Defendant No.1 in collusion with Defendant No.2 and 3 evaded to pay the share in the income of the Agriculture land to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property on a pretext hat there was drought condition prevailing in the locality and there were no profits received from the Agriculture. The plaintiff submits that during the month of January 2006 the plaintiff approached the Defendants and enquired about the matter with regard to her share in the income of the suit schedule property but the defendant No.1 did not give any suitable rely as such approached the Defendant No.2 and 3 and they also did not give any suitable reply. The plaintiff submits that having vexed with the attitude of the Defendants the plaintiff enquired in the revenue office and came to know that the Defendant No.1 in collusion with Defendant No.2 and 3 manipulated the entire revenue record and got incorporated her name in the entire revenue records to the total extent of Ac.18-25 gts ignoring the 1/3rd share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that immediately on 10-04-2007 the plaintiff approached the Defendants for partition and amicable settlement of joint family property and the Defendants denied the share of the Plaintiff as such the plaintiff forced to file the present suit and the plaintiff and Defendants have got 1/3rd equal share in the suit schedule property. In all the circumstances mentioned above it is essential to pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants in accordance with the respective shares of the parties. It is also essential to appoint a commissioner for the purpose of effecting the partition of the suit schedule property according to the shares of the parties by metes and bounds and by keeping i