Episode in brief:

The unsuccessful defendant Pentyala Koteswara Rao in O.S.No.85 of 1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, had preferred this appeal. The appellant-defendant died and the second appellant Pentyala Kumaramma, wife of said Pentyala Koteswara Rao, was brought on record as per the order dated 14.9.2009 in A.S.M.P.No.1542 of 2009.

2. Pentyala Ramaiah, the first plaintiff in the said suit, died. Respondents in the present appeal are plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the said suit. The third plaintiff was added as per the orders made in I.A.No.388 of 1990, dated 20.7.1994, in the said suit O.S.No.85 of 1987 aforesaid. The third plaintiff was declared as major as per the orders in I.A.No.954 of 1998 dated 02.11.1998 as the guardian was discharged as per the orders dated 02.11.1998 made in I.A.No.955 of 1998.

3. The suit was filed for delivery of plaint ‘A1’ schedule property to plaintiffs 2 and 3 or in the alternative for partition of plaint ‘A’ schedule property into three equal shares and allot two such shares to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and put them in possession of the same and also for mesne profits and for declaration of right and title of the second plaintiff relating to plaint ‘B’ schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction and for declaration of first plaintiff’s right over plaint ‘C’ schedule property and separate possession of half share to the second plaintiff and for mesne profits relating to the said ‘C’ schedule properties as well and for other appropriate reliefs.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, on the strength of the respective pleadings, having settled the issues and additional issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, D.Ws.1 to 3, marked Exs.A-1 to A-9, Exs.B-1 to B-8 and after answering the issues came to the conclusion that respondents in the present appeal, the plaintiffs, are not entitled for possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties, since there was no prior partition and the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary decree of partition of plaint ‘A’ schedule property (excluding Ac.2-00 in item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule in S.No.439/2 agreed to be given to the appellant-defendant by his mother under Ex.B-8) into three equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot two such shares to plaintiffs 2 and 3 and for separate possession. The title to ‘B’ schedule property of second plaintiff had been declared and consequential permanent injunction also had been granted relating to plaint ‘B’ schedule property and further it was declared that the first plaintiff was the absolute owner of the plaint ‘C’ schedule property and the second plaintiff is entitled to half share in the said plaint ‘C’ schedule property on partition and that relating to the respective shares the plaintiffs are entitled to the mesne profits to be worked out by separate applications and ultimately the relief for possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to plaintiffs 2 and 3 and future profits therein had been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, as already aforesaid, the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.85 of 1987 aforesaid had preferred the present appeal and the said appellant having died, his wife was brought on record as second appellant as already stated supra.

5. Contentions of Sri M.S.N. Prasad:

Sri M.S.N. Prasad, the learned counsel representing the appellant in all thoroughness had taken this Court through the grounds of appeal, the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial court as well and would maintain that the trial court totally erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The learned counsel also would maintain that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 being not trustworthy, the said evidence should have been rejected by the trial court. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the oral evidence on behalf of the defendant, D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3,