(1) Defendants 1 and 2 in OS No. 164 of 1989 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, are the appellants.

(2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(3) Sri B. Venkatreddi filed the suit OS No. 164 of 1989 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties against the defendants. The facts pleaded by him, in brief, are : one Sri Subbaiah had five sons, viz., Venkatreddi (plaintiff), Pedda Subbanna (1st defendant), Chinna Subbanna, Seshareddi and Bala Subbareddi. Subbaiah died leaving behind him large extent of properties. Being the eldest son, Venkatreddi managed the affairs of the family. When the family was joint, plaint schedule items 1 to 3 were acquired under an agreement of sale dated 5.2.1971 from defendants 3 to 5 in the name of the 1st defendant. In the year 1983, a partition was effected wherein two shares were jointly allotted to Venkatreddi and the 1st defendant, two shares to Chinna Subbanna and Seshareddi and one share to Bala Subbareddi. Plaint schedule items 1 to 3, thereby became the joint properties of the plaintiff and 1st defendant.

(4) It was pleaded that the plaintiff became ill and thereafter the family was being looked after by the 1 st defendant, and taking advantage of the same, 1st defendant obtained a sale deed in respect of items 1 to 3, on 22.8.1987 in favour of his wife, the 2nd defendant. With this background, plaintiff prayed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

(5) The 2nd defendant alone filed written statement opposing the suit. The 1st defendant adopted the same, by filing a memo. It was pleaded that the partition among the five brothers took place in the year 1983 and each one of them were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The 2nd defendant claimed items 1 to 3 as her exclusive properties by virtue of the sale deed marked as Ex.B2. It was stated that the consideration for the said property was paid by her and the agreement of sale in the year 1971 was executed by defendants 3 to 5 in the name of the 1st defendant, on her instructions. She contended that the items of property that fell to the share of the 1st defendant were sold in the execution of insolvency proceedings initiated against him.

(6) During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff Venkatreddi died. His two daughters, viz., B. Venkatlakshumma and A. Prameela were brought on record. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree through its judgment dated 2.12.2002. Aggrieved thereby, defendants 1 and 2 filed AS No. 17 of 2003 in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Kadapa. During the pendency of that appeal, B. Venkatlakshumma died issueless. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal through its judgment dated 8.4.2008. Hence, this second appeal.

(7) Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 (appellants). He submits that except pleading that a partition of the joint family took place in the year 1983, bringing about three satellite families, no material was placed before the trial Court to prove the same. He submits that such a course is not only unusual, but also is not supported by any practice or custom in the area. He further submits that the 2nd defendant is not a coparcener either in the undivided family or in the so-called satellite families and items 1 to 3, which are purchased by her under Ex.B2, cannot be the subject-matter of partition. He contends that the 1st defendant was declared insolvent and all the properties that fell to his share in the family partition have been sold away in the insolvency proceedings.

(8) Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that there is cogent evidence to prove that a division of the family took place in the year 1983 in the manner pleaded in the plaint and the only person, who could have denied the same, viz., the 1st defendant, has not chosen