B. Prakash Rao, J.

This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of the defendants 2,3 and 5 to 7 in the suit aggrieved against the judgment and decree in O.S.55 of 1985 dated 23-4-1997, on the file of Subordinate Judge at Ramchandrapuram, East Godavari decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs viz., the respondents 1 to 2 herein for partition in respect of plaint 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties and allotting the shares to the parties. The respondent no.1 is defendant No.3 and respondent no.4 is defendant no.4.

In brief, the emerging facts in this cause are that parties on both the sides are closely interrelated. For convenience sake, they are referred to as arrayed in the Court below. The respondents 1 and 2/the plaintiffs have filed the suit inter alia seeking for partition of the plaint 'A' schedule property into 3 equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot two such shares to them and for partition of plaint 'B' schedule properties into 9 equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot 4 such shares to them through the process of Court and directing the defendants 1 to 3 to render accounts in respect of poultry business, which was allegedly run in the plaint 'B' Schedule property from the year 1968 till the date of filing of the suit and for awarding future profits and costs.

The defendant No.1 is arrayed as respondent No.3 whereas the defendant No.4 is arrayed as respondent No.4 in this appeal.

The plaintiffs are real brothers and are sons of defendant No.1 whereas the defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.3 and defendant Nos.5 to 7 are the children of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No.4 is the sister of defendant No.1. The father of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 viz., Sri Narsimha Murthy died on 24-6-1971 whereas the mother predeceased him since died in about year 1947. It is stated in the plaint that during the life time of late Sri Narsimha Murthy, defendant No.1 partitioned the joint family land under the registered partition deed in the year 1961 excluding the family house and a vacant site at Pulagurtha as joint. The defendant No.2 is the daughter of natural brother of late Sri Narsimha Murthy. Her parents died when she was a minor and therefore late Narsimha Murthy brought her up and got married her with defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 happened to be a veterinary science student, and in view of his education qualifications, after obtaining B.VSc decree, the late Narsimha Murthy got the said marriage performed. After completion of the said degree, the defendant No.3 joined the service in Veterinary Department and was working as B.D.O in Urban Development Project in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and settled at Hyderabad.

The defendants 2 and 3 sought assistance for establishing a poultry business at Hyderabad and in view of their sufficient experience in that business they requested late Sri Narsimha Murthy for investing the money with an understanding that the profits arising there from can be shared by late Sri Narsimha Murthy, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 equally after meeting the necessary expenses apart from the interest for such investment at 15%. For that purpose, an extent of Ac.7-14 gts of land was purchased at Attapur with the finances provided by late Narsimha Murthy and a poultry farm was started, which was developed substantially by providing several sheds, residential quarters and feed mixing plant etc., in the premises. The said business has become very profitable and later two manufacturing plants were installed in the very same premises with the profits arising from the said poultry business. Therefore, it is stated that all these properties have been treated as joint family properties. In the plaint there is a denial as to the claim that an extent of Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.335/3 in 'B' Schedule was purchased by or belongs to defendant No.3. Hence, the case of the plaintiff in short is that all this land and properties in scheduled 'A' a