This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1995 passed in as No.98 of 1989 by the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

2. The appellant herein is the second defendant and the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and other respondents are other defendants in the suit and for the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Court below.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The plaintiff is the second wife of late Surya Rao. The first wife of late Surya Rao - Sarojini died in the year 1971. The second defendant is the son of late Surya Rao through his first wife Sarojini. First defendant is the mother of late Surya. Rao. She died during the proceedings of the suit. The third defendant and late Surya Rao jointly purchased Item No.1 of 'A' Schedule properties. The other contesting defendants are said to be the purchasers of some of the 'B' schedule properties during the pendency of the suit. Late Surya Rao was having Item No.1 of 'A' schedule properties, i.e., Ac.1.33 cents of land. Late Sarojini was given 0.40 cents of land by her father. Late Surya Rao was working as a Clerk in Mandapeta Municipality. He seems to have purchased a house in the year 1966. After late Sarojini gave birth to the second defendant, late Surya Rao underwent family planning operation. The initial case of the plaintiff is that at the instance of DW3- the father of late Sarojini, late Surya Rao sold away his ancestral house situated at Mandapeta and about 40 cents of vacant site standing in the name of his first wife Sarojini and gave entire sale proceeds to his son - the second defendant towards and in lieu of his share in the joint family property. Thus, the original case of the plaintiff is that there was a partition between the plaintiff and the second defendant soon after the death of Sarojini and all 'A' schedule properties are the exclusive properties of late Surya Rao and she got 1/3rd share in all 'A' schedule properties. She filed a suit for partition and other consequential reliefs.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 are sailing together. The initial stand of the defendants is that there was no partition between late Surya Rao and the second defendant as claimed by the plaintiff and all the 'A' Schedule properties are the joint family properties and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to 1/3rd share, but she is entitled to only 1/6th share. The case of the third defendant is that himself and late Surya Rao jointly purchased Item 2B of 'A' schedule properties under registered sale deed dated 25.8.1983 and he is having half share in that item. The first defendant had categorically averred as follows:

"The said Suryarao did not divide with his son Radhakrishna who is the 2nd defendant herein and the joint family between the 2nd defendant and late Surya Rao continued till the death of late Surya Rao."

"The said joint family also purchased a house bearing Door No.4-5-3 at Mandapcta in the year 1966 and subsequently, the said house was sold away by Surya Rao and his son while the second defendant was a minor, on 28.6.1973. The said document itself clinchingly disproves the plaintiff's contention that the 2nd defendant was divided with his father in the year 1972."

"Late Surya Rao's first wife Sarojini was having Ac.0-40cts. of vacant site situated at Mandapeta as her stridhana property and as she died intestate, that property was devolved upon her husband Suryarao and the 2nd defendant herein and subsequently on 3.2.1984 they jointly sold away that property in favour of others for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The said Surya Rao and his son Radhakrishna comprising of a joint family purchased a site at Mandapeta in which late Surya Rao constructed a building bearing Door No.17-1-41 which is described in the schedule annexed to this written statement with the sale proceeds of the house bearing Door No.4-5-3 and also a portion of the sale proceeds