O.S.No.29 of 1979 was laid on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The suit was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda and was renumbered as O.S.No.209 of 1980. In 1984, the suit was made over to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri and renumbered as O.S.No.19 of 1984. It is this O.S.No.19 of 1984, which was disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, the judgment and the decree of which are assailed in this appeal.

2. Seven plaintiffs laid the suit. There were 16 defendants before the trial Court. After filing of the appeal, the first plaintiff died. His legal representative was brought on record as appellant No.8. Defendants 4, 5, 7 and 15 are also no more. Their legal representatives are respondents 17 to 23, respondents 30 to 33, respondents 34 to 37 and respondents 24 to 29 respectively. Respondents 25 and 27 subsequently died. The legal representatives of respondent No.25 are respondents 38 to 42. The legal representatives of respondent No.27 are respondents 43 to 45. However, for the purposes of the brevity and clarity, I refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the suit. The deaths of parties and their legal representativeships are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, since the appeal arises more or less from a preliminary decree and not from a final decree.

3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.19 of 1984 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Anantapur District preferred the present appeal, assailing the judgment dated 17.03.1987. The plaintiffs sought for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for allotment of half of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No.16. Holding that the suit is barred by limitation, that the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC, for short) and also considering that the judgment in O.S.No.178 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Penukonda operates as an admission and as res judicata, the suit was dismissed without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred the present appeal.

4. There is lengthy genealogy of which the parties belong to various branches. One Chinna Subbanna was the common ancestor of the parties. Chinna Subbanna begot three sons in Yerrappa, Chinna Gangappa and Pedda Gangappa. Chinna Gangappa's son-Subbanna died in 1974 leaving plaintiffs 1 to 4, 6, 7, defendant No.16 and husband of the plaintiff No.5. The husband of the plaintiff No.5 is no more.

5. Chinna Subbanna's son-Yerrappa gave birth to five sons viz., Pedda Gangappa, Thimmappa, Venkatappa, Gangappa and Subbanna. Pedda Gangappa, s/o. Yerrappa begot defendants 1 to 4. Defendants 5 to 9 are the children of Thimmappa, s/o. Yerrappa. Venkatappa's son is defendant No.10. The children of Gangappa, s/o. Yerrappa are defendants 11 to 14. Yerrappa's last son-Subbanna is defendant No.15. Chinna Subbanna's son-Pedda Gangappa predeceased his brothers, Yerrappa and Chinna Gangappa. He left two daughters, who are not parties to the present case.

For the purpose of clarity, the genealogical chart is drawn as under: Genealogy Chart ChinnaSubbanna (Common Ancestor)

YerrappaChinna Gangappa PeddaGangappa | |

(Predeceased Yerrappa | | & ChinnaGangappa

Subbanna | | | | | (died in 1974) =

Wife (Pedda Gangamma)

| | | | | | |

PeddaThimmappa Venkatappa Chinna Subbanna |

|

Gangappa| | Gangappa (D15) |

_______________

| | | | | |

|

| | | | |

Daughter Daughter

_______________ | D10 ___________________ |

| | | | | | | | |

| D1 D2 D3 D4 | D11 D12 D13 D14 | | |

________________________ _________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | |

| | | D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 P1 P2 P3 P4 Husband P6 P7

D16 of P5

6. The plaintiffs claim:

a) Yerrappa and his brother-Chinna Gangappa (sons of common ancestor-Chinna Subbanna) lived as members of the joint family for some years. Pedda Gangappa, s/o. Yerrappa (and father of the defendants 1 to 4) died about 15 years prior t