1. Plaintiffs in OS.No. 147 of 1993 on the file of the VI-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad are the appellants. They filed the said suit seeking to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession in respect of Matruka property bearing H.No. 17-1-238 to 241, admeasuring 1640 sq. yards situated at Hat Mama Bhaktawar, near Santhoshnagar colony, Hyderabad. The suit was dismissed under the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

2. The facts, which are borne out by the record, are as follows,

The original plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 are brothers being the sons of late Sharfuddin and late Mahboob Bee. Late Sharfuddin was the owner of the suit house bearing No. 17-1-238 to 241 as well as other two houses, with which we are not concerned in this suit. It is alleged in the plaint that late Sharfuddin executed a gift deed dated 3.9.1953 whereby the suit schedule house was gifted to his wife Mahboob Bee, out of love and affection and for the services rendered by her, and towards her life maintenance. The other two houses were exclusively gifted to the first plaintiff and the first defendant. Sharfuddin died on 11.1.1966, whereas his wife Mahboob Bee died on 20.6.1988. The plaintiff, therefore, alleges that after the death of Mahboob Bee, the life interest created for Mahboob Bee with respect to the suit schedule house came to an end and thereby the first plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to equally share the Matruka property. The plaintiff alleges that on 1.2.1993 he demanded the defendants to make partition of the suit schedule house and for separate possession and as the same having been denied, the present suit was filed for partition and separate possession, on 11.2.1993.

3. The defendants 1 to 4 resisted the suit by filing their written statement claiming that under the registered gift deed dated 3.9.1953 Mahboob Bee became exclusive owner of the suit schedule house and under the same document the first defendant was exclusively gifted another house bearing H.No. 17-1-385 to 387. It is further alleged that Mahboob Bee during her life time executed a registered sale deed dated 27.8.1970 in favour of wife of first defendant and as such there is no Matruka property left by her, when she died on 20.6.1988. It is alleged that the plaintiff being aware of the sale made by Mahboob Bee in favour of wife of first defendant, did not challenge the same and only in the year 1993 he filed the present suit for partition suppressing the said sale.

4. The original plaintiff and the first defendant died pending the suit and the plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the legal heirs of original plaintiff, whereas the defendants 9 to 29 were impleaded as legal heirs of first defendant.

5. The plaintiff No.3 examined himself as P.W.1 and a close relative of the plaintiff as P.W.2. Similarly the defendant No.24 was examined as D.W.1 and the defendant No.9 as D.W.2 who is the wife of first defendant. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exs.A1 to 7 were marked and crucial document among them is Ex.A6- copy of registered gift deed executed by late Sharfuddin dated 3.9.1953 which is in Urdu and the English thereof was marked as Ex.A7. The defendants also filed and marked original gift deed as Ex.B1 which is in Urdu and its English translation as Ex.B2. The registered sale deed dated 27.8.1970 under which D.W.2 purchased the suit house is marked as Ex.B3 and English translation thereof is marked as Ex.B4. The trial Court framed the following issues,

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the suit property?

(2) Whether the suit property is not Matruka property of late Mahboob Bee and not liable for partition as contended by the defendants 1 and 2?

(3) To what relief?

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the translations of Ex.A7 and Ex.B2 do not tally with each other and as per Ex.B