The respondents filed O.S.No.61 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against the appellants for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property viz., an extent of Ac.0.66 cents of land in Survey No.212/1 of Pernamitta Village. It was pleaded that the property was held by one Sri Yadla Venkata Subba Reddy and he got the same along with other items of properties in partition between himself and his two brothers by name Rangaiah and Venkata Ratnam. The 1st respondent is the wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the daughters of Venkata Ratnam, whereas the first appellant is the daughter-in-law and the second appellant is the grand daughter of Rangaiah. Appellants 3 to 6 are said to be the purchasers of parts of the suit schedule property from appellants 1 and 2.

2. It was pleaded that Venkata Subba Reddy died issueless, possessed of the suit schedule property. According to the respondents, the property was being enjoyed in joint by themselves and appellants 1 and 2 and that since they came to know that the property was being sold by appellants 1 and 2, the suit was filed for partition.

3. On behalf of appellants 1 and 2, a written statement was filed. They admitted the relationship of the parties as pleaded in the plaint. It was however stated that Venkata Subba Reddy executed a Will, dated 11.07.1988 (Ex.B.14) bequeathing various items of properties in favour of themselves, representing the branch of Rangaiah, on the one hand and the respondents, representing the branch of Venkata Ratnam, on the other hand. The suit schedule property is said to have been bequeathed to them exclusively. They have also stated that ever since then, they are exercising the rights of ownership vis-à-vis the property and that their names were also entered in the revenue records. Instances of sale of parts of the property were also pleaded. The 5th respondent also filed a written statement on the same lines.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 30.06.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed A.S.No.123 of 2006 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appeal was allowed through judgment, dated 12.04.2010. Hence, this second appeal.

5. Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the lower appellate Court recorded several findings contrary to evidence. He submits that though a specific plea was raised in the written statement filed by appellants 1 and 2 that late Venkata Subba Reddy executed a will, no rejoinder was filed by the respondents disputing the execution of the will, much less any suspicious circumstances were pleaded. He contends that the very fact that the suit was filed only in respect of one of the items of the property, that too about 50 years after the death of Venkata Subba Reddy discloses that it was a speculative litigation. Learned counsel further submits that in clear and categorical terms, P.W.1 stated that she did not instruct anyone to file the suit and that she is not aware of even the partition among their brothers, much less about the suit schedule property; and still the lower appellate Court decreed the suit ignoring such vital statements. He further submits that the suit was defective, inasmuch as all the properties that were left by late Venkata Subba Reddy were not included in the schedule.

6. Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on wrong assumption of fact and law and that the lower appellate Court has corrected the same. He contends that his clients did not file any rejoinder, since the Will was not filed along with the written statement nor at the commencement of the trial. Learned counsel further submits that the enjoyment of the suit schedule property was jointly by both the parties and that in case, the appellants are of the view that any item of property left by Venkata S