In this appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 11.7.1984 in O.S.No.86 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge (now, Additional Senior Civil Judge), Chittoor, the dispute is about movable and immovable property between the sister, her blood brothers and her cousins. By judgment dated 17.7.1997, learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment in O.S.No.86 of 1977 and decreed the partition as prayed for by the plaintiff. Letters Patent Appeal Bench reversed the judgment of learned Single Judge and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. That is how the matter is again set down for yet another hearing before this Court. For a better understanding of the factual background, the following genealogy may be noticed. The parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

2. The plaintiff, Rajamma, filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/12th share in the suit schedule property. Her case is as follows. She alleged that her father, Nadipanna, was member of joint family along with Narayana Reddy and his sons. Joint family possessed of plaint ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. The plaintiff’s father and the third defendant were entitled to 1/3rd share each in all the properties on the date of the death of Nadipanna. After the death of the father, fourth defendant was in joint possession of the property. In 1963, there was a division between the two branches of Naranaya Reddy and Nadipanna. Plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and other movable properties were allotted towards the share of plaintiff’s branch. After such partition, defendants 1 to 3 are in joint possession of properties allotted to their branch as co-owners. The properties in plaint ‘B’ schedule were acquired with the income of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties were in joint possession of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. The mother of plaintiff, Atchamma, died in 1969. After her death, she and other siblings of Nadipanna are entitled to 1/12th share in the property while defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 5/12th share. The plaintiff and third defendant continued to be in joint possession after 1969. The fourth defendant is the daughter of the first defendant in whose favour the latter executed a document purporting to alienate the properties. Thereafter differences arose between defendants and plaintiff when she questioned the alienation. As it is no longer desirable for the plaintiff to continue in the joint family, she filed the suit for partition and possession.

3. The first defendant filed written statement and additional written statement opposing the suit. The same was adopted by the second defendant. The fourth defendant filed separate written statement alleging that the first defendant executed the registered settlement deed for an extent of Acs.0.66 in survey No.366 and also 1/8th share in the Well at the time of her marriage.

4. The suit was mainly opposed contending that there was no partition in 1963 between the two branches of the joint family, that none of the properties in plaint ‘B’ schedule was purchased from the funds derived from plaint ‘A’ schedule properties, that there was a registered partition between the defendants 1 and 2 and sons of Narayana Reddy, and that on 24.5.1960 Nadipanna executed a Will bequeathing entire property to the defendants 1 and 2. They also denied the right of plaintiff towards her share in the joint family properties, contending that her marriage was performed long back and she is not entitled for a share in the joint family properties.

5. The trial Court framed as many as seventeen (17) issues. The plaintiff examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.A1 and A2. The first defendant gave evidence as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B8 including the Will as Ex.B1 and the registered partition deed as Ex.B8. The two attestors of the Will were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3. The brother-in-law of the D.W.1 also gave evidenc