L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.90 of 1973 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, are the appellants. They feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S. No.2164 of 1984, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court.

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

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit against defendants 1 and 2 for the relief of partition of the suit schedule property, an extent of Acs.6-69 cents of land in Survey No.303/1 of Krishnapuram village, Chandragiri Taluq, Chittoor District. They pleaded that their father, the 2nd defendant, purchased the suit property through a sale deed dated 16-10-1969 by utilizing the resources of the joint family, but has sold the same clandestinely on 27-06-1973 in favour of the 1st defendant taking advantage of the fact that they are minors. It was pleaded that their ancestors were originally from Kadapa District and migrated to Tirupati several decades ago, and there, the family has also taken on lease, an extent of Acs.9-00 of land apart from acquiring valuable properties, and with the nucleus of the joint family, the suit schedule property was acquired. It was also alleged that the 2nd defendant purchased an extent of Acs.14-00 of land long ago and sold the same by dividing it into plots. The sale proceeds are said to have been utilized in purchasing the suit schedule property. They have also pleaded that the 2nd defendant was addicted to vices and the property was sold, only to meet his expenditure therefor.

4. The suit was contested by the 1st defendant alone. He pleaded that the suit schedule property was self-acquisition of the 2nd defendant and that the plaintiffs did not have any right to insist on partition. He alleged that the joint family was not possessed of any valuable assets and for all practical purposes, it just migrated to Tirupati for livelihood. It was alleged that by dint of hard work, the 2nd respondent acquired some properties and the appellants do not have any right over the same. His further plea was that the suit schedule property was sold for family necessities.

5. During the pendency of the suit itself, defendants 1 and 2 died. While the plaintiffs are legal representatives of the 2nd defendant, defendants 3 to 9 are legal representatives of the 1st defendant.

6. Through its judgment dated 31-07-1984, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree.

7. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court, legal representatives of the 1st respondent preferred A.S. No.2164 of 1984 before this Court. The appeal was allowed through judgment dated 08-11-1994. Hence, this L.P.A. is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

8. Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned single Judge has proceeded on the assumption that the family of the 2nd respondent was not possessed of any resources and that the suit schedule property is his self-acquisition. He contends that long ago in the year 1961, the 2nd respondent purchased an extent of Acs.14-00 of land and by that time, the income from the land taken on lease, and sale proceeds under Exs.A-6 to A-8 were available. He submits that the land covered by Ex.A-10 was sold by dividing it into plots and with that sale proceeds, the suit schedule property was purchased, and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be self-acquisition or absolute property of the 2nd defendant. He contends that the trial Court passed the preliminary decree on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and the learned single Judge has reversed the same, without there being any valid basis.

9. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st defendant, submits that though the plea that the property was sold for the expenditure incurred on account of vices was taken, the plaintiffs did not substantiate the same. He submits that the evidence on record would clearly establish that the 2nd defendant was h