The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

2. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.21 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, is the appellant. The 1st respondent i.e. plaintiff, filed the suit for the relief of partition of an extent of Ac.1.20 cents of land into four equal shares and to put her in possession of one such share, besides passing a decree for possession of Ac.0.60 cents of the plaint schedule land, said to have been gifted to her by her father.

3. Theplaintiff, defendant No.6 and Appala Narasa, mother of defendants 2 to 5, are the three daughters and the 1st defendant is the son of late Raavi Appala Murthy. Two bits of land in survey No.334 of Yellamanchili Village, viz., Ac.1.60 cents and Ac.0.60 cents were purchased by Appala Murthy, through separate sale deeds, on 01-02-1967. Out of the total extent of Acs.2.20 cents, Ac.0.40 cents was acquired by the Government. The plaintiff pleaded that, her father executed a deed of gift / settlement, dated 11-02-1970 (Ex.A.1), in her favour as regards, Ac.0.60 cents and that in the remaining Ac.1.20 cents, she is entitled to a share of one-fourth, namely Ac.0.30 cents. Though she sought for the relief of partition in respect of Ac.1.20 cents, she has included some more items, such as a property of Ac.0.10 cents in survey No.334, and Ac.0.35 cents of vacant land; in the suit schedule.

4. The principal contest to the suit was by the 1st defendant. He pleaded that the land in survey No.334 was purchased by their father, after selling an item of ancestral property through Ex.B.1, dated 29-04-1967 and that Ex.A.1 could not have been executed by their father by treating it as his self-acquired property. It was further pleaded that Ex.A.1 was forged and that it does not give rise to any rights, in favour of the plaintiff.

5. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree through judgment dated 09-09-2004. The 1st defendant filed A.S.No.31 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. The appeal was dismissed on 04-07-2005. Hence, this Second Appeal.

6. Sri S. Rajan, learned counsel for the 1st defendant, submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court committed errors on several legal aspects. He contends that the preliminary decree passed in respect of the items of suit schedule property was opposed to the very text of the judgment, wherein, relief was granted only in respect of item No.1 of A-schedule. He submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have recorded finding as to the proof of Ex.A.1, contrary to the purport of Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel further submits that the finding on the question as to whether the land in survey No.334, was the joint family property or self-acquisition of Appala Murthy is defective, since it was clearly established that the said property was purchased with the proceeds of an item of joint family property, sold through Ex.B.1. He places reliance upon certain decided cases.

7. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that though in the relief portion of the plaint mention was made only to item No.1 and the discussion was also devoted to it, reference was made to all the items; in the body of the plaint. He contends that an item of joint family property was sold under Ex.B.1, after item No.1 of A-schedule in the present suit was purchased and thereby, it cannot be treated as the joint family property. As regards the proof of Ex.A.1, learned counsel submits that the proviso to Sections 68 and 90 of the Evidence Act govern the situation and the findings recorded by the trial Court, as upheld by the lower Appellate Court, are correct.

8. The relief claimed by the plaintiff was a bit complex, in nature. On the one hand, she prayed for partition in respect of Ac.1.20 cents of land; and on the other hand wanted a decree for recovery of possession of Ac.0.60 cents of land, which is said to have