1. These two second appeals are directed against the common judgment in A.S.Nos.80 of 1998 and 83 of 2001 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District dated 29-11-2003 and hence, they are heard and decided together.

2. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties items 1 to 8 and allotment of 1/7th share to him and to restrain the defendants and any others claiming through them from alienating or making any constructions in the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff, who is the son of defendants 1 and 7 and brother of defendants 2 to 6, claimed that they constituted a joint Hindu family of which the 1st defendant was the Kartha. He claimed the suit schedule properties to have been purchased in the name of the 1st defendant with the earnings of the entire family including the joint exertions of the plaintiff and others. The entire family was enjoying the properties and when the 1st defendant became bed ridden due to paralysis, he started neglecting the plaintiff and showing more affection towards defendants 2 to 6. On learning that the 1st defendant was trying to transfer some properties to defendants 2 to 6 and sell other properties to third parties, the plaintiff made demands for partition, but in vain. Hence, the suit.

4. The 1st defendant died after filing of the suit and the 7th defendant, his wife, was brought on record as his legal representative.

5. The defendants 2 to 7 denied the allegations in the plaint, which are not specifically admitted and the plaintiff was stated to be living separately with his wife and children at Hydershakote village having nothing to do with the family affairs of defendants 1 to 7. The suit schedule properties are the self-acquired exclusive properties of the 1st defendant and enjoyed as such. When the 1st defendant was ill, the plaintiff never visited him and the 1st defendant died after this false suit for partition, on deterioration of his health. The plaintiff was never in joint possession of any property and the 1st defendant, who acquired the properties in items-1 to 3 under registered sale deeds, executed the registered Wills dated 18-03-1989 and 5-10-1989 in favour of defendants 2 and 5 respectively concerning items 1 and 3 and the 1st defendant also sold away Ac.2.00 of land in item-2 to his son-in-law under a registered deed dated 5-6-1989, while the remaining Ac.1.13 guntas were given to the 1st defendant’s daughter Urmila (Rani) Bai, wife of Satyanarayana towards Pasupukumkuma. While the 1st defendant had nothing to do with items 4 to 7 of the plaint schedule, an open plot of 400 square yards in item-7 belonged to Indira Bai, the daughter of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant was the owner of the house in item-8, but it was not measuring about 100 square yards as stated in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff separated more than 15 years earlier from the defendants and was living with his wife and children at House No.2-24, Hydershakote village, whereas the defendants were living at Kanukunta village. The plaintiff was, hence, contended to be not entitled to any share and to have not paid the court fee as per the market value of the properties being out of possession. The suit was also liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of proper and necessary parties to the suit and hence, the defendants 2 to 7 desired that the suit be dismissed with costs.

6. On such pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial.

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit properties as prayed for?

(2) Whether the suit is to be dismissed for mis-joinder or (of) parties?

(3) Whether the court fee paid is not correct?

(4) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. During trial, PWs.1 and 2 and DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and B.1 to B.7 were marked.

8. The trial Court rendered its ju