P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. The unsuccessful Plaintiffs are the appellants herein. Original Suit No.1006 of 1994 is filed by the plaintiffs for partition of suit schedule property into four equal shares, allotment of their respective shares as between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and for delivery of possession of the respective share. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 are the sons and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of defendant No.1; defendant No.2 is the fostered daughter of late Ramji Patangay and Smt. Laxmi Bai Patangay. Defendant No.3 is the husband of defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are children of defendant Nos.2 and 3.

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

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that their grandfather late Ramji Patangay was the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property, which is a double storied house, bearing Municipal Nos.4-4-264, 4-4-265 and 4-4-266, admeasuring 2500 Sq. yards situated at Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad. Late Ramji Patangay died in the year 1956. During his life time, he married Smt. Laxmi Bai Patangay, who died in the year 1984 issueless. Late Ramji Patangay also married Smt. Rajamma and defendant No.1 was born, out of their wed-lock in the year 1939. Smt. Rajamma died in the year 1967. Plaintiffs were born to the defendant No.1 and Smt. Prameela Bai Patangay. Plaintiffs were born in the years 1967, 1970 and 1973 respectively. After the death of late Ramji Patangay, they succeeded to the joint Hindu ancestral suit schedule property. It was further averred that suit schedule property is the joint Hindu ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and Plaintiffs are the coparceners and class-I legal heirs and successors of late Ramji Patangay. Plaintiffs aver that since defendant No.1 was not acceding to the requests of the plaintiffs for partition of the suit schedule property, and for separate possession, the suit is instituted. It is averred that defendant No.2 is third party and has no right or authority claiming interest over the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 were added as parties, as per the orders of the trial Court in I.A. No.2323 of 1997 on 05.12.1998.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed separate written statements.

5. Defendant No.1 has admitted all the averments made in the plaint and sided with his children, the plaintiffs. He pleaded that he is the legitimate son of late Ramji Patangay and succeeded to the joint Hindu ancestral property of late Ramji Patangay. The plaintiffs being his children, they have legitimate right to claim share in the suit schedule property along with defendant No.1. He avers that defendant No.2 has no right or authority and is in illegal possession of suit schedule property.

6. Actual contest to the suit, was by defendant No.2. She denied the averments made in the plaint, in particular the relationship of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 with Ramji Patangay. She traced the history as to how the properties have devolved on defendant Nos.2 to 5. She stated that the ancestral property devolved on Narayana Rao Patangay, Ramji Patangay and Eshwara Rao Patangay, who were brothers. Ramji Patangay died in the year 1956. After his demise, partition was effected in the family under a registered partition-cum-settlement deed dated 30.01.1960. As per the terms of the said partition deed, suit schedule property was allotted to the share of wife of late Ramji Patangay i.e., Smt. Laxmi Bai Patangay. It was also pleaded that she is daughter of Narayana Rao Patangay and since Ramji Patangay and Smt. Laxmi Bai Patangay had no issues they fostered her as their daughter. It was her case that suit schedule property bearing Municipal No.8-5-264 was sub-divided into three parts namely 4-4-264, 4-4-265 and 4-4-266 and that through two registered settlement deeds bearing document Nos.1064/61 dated 04.04.1961 and 2623/66 dated 22.07.1966, late Laxmi Bai Patangay settled the premises bearing Muni