This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.03-06-2013 in A.S.No.12 of 2010 of the Senior Civil Judge at Bhongir (for short “the lower appellate Court”), reversing the judgment and decree dt.04-06-2010 of the Principal Junior Judge, Bhongir in O.S.No.283 of 2003 (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellants are defendants in the above suit. The suit was filed by 1st respondent/plaintiff for partition of the plaint schedule properties admeasuring Ac.6-02 gts. (in Sy.Nos. 508/A1, 508/A2, 508/A3, 508/A4, 508/A5,743/A1, 743/A2 and 747/A2 of Chada village, M.Athmakur Mandal of Nalgonda district) into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him, for the relief of declaration that he is the owner to the extent of 1/3rd share out of Ac.2-06 gts. in Sy.No.508/A of the same village.

3. The plaint schedule properties belong to one late Rajamallu. The plaintiff claims to be the son of Rajamallu through his first wife Pedda Narasamma. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are admittedly sons of Rajamallu through Chinna Narasamma, his second wife.

4. The plaintiff alleged that the extent of Ac.6-02 gts. mentioned in the plaint schedule belongs to Rajamallu; that he was also a pattedar of an extent of Ac.2-06 gts. in Sy.No.508/A ; although the property was in the name of one Kancharla Mallaiah, father of defendant Nos.3 to 5 nominally, Rajamallu had acquired title to this property also by adverse possession; Rajamallu had died about 10 years prior to filing of the suit; on his death, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the plaint schedule properties; that taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff in the village, defendants Nos.1 and 2 got mutated their name in respect of the suit lands except Ac.2-06 gts. in Sy.No.508/A and started enjoying the lands exclusively; and when he demanded for partition, they did not agree. So he had to file the suit.

5. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement denying the plaint averments. They contended that plaintiff is a stranger to the family and he never resided either with Rajamallu or defendant Nos.1 and 2. They also contended that plaintiff was residing with one Bodige Somaiah and Veeramma for more than 60 years by enjoying their properties; that Rajamallu died about 18 years prior to filing of the suit and only defendant Nos.1 and 2 are his legal heirs; that plaintiff never objected when mutation of the plaint schedule property was made in the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 or when they were issued pattedar pass books and title deed; and that they have also perfected title to the plaint schedule property by adverse possession. They contended that the suit is barred by limitation and the boundaries of the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule are false and incorrect.

6. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 adopted the written statement of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing a memo.

7. The Court below framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of partition as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as owner of 1/3rd share out of Ac.2-06 gts. in Sy.No.508/A as prayed for ?

3. Whether the boundaries of the suit schedule properties are incorrect?

4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

5. Whether the defendants perfected their right over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession?

6. To what relief?”

7. The plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-15. The defendants examined D.Ws.1 to 3, but did not mark any documents.

8. By judgment and decree dt.04-06-2010, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. The trial Court held that plaintiff failed to prove that he is the son of late Rajamallu or that he resided with the family of Rajamallu and cultivated the plaint schedule property jointly and therefore, he is not entitled to relief of partition. It held that during the life time of Rajamallu itself the plaint schedule properties were partitioned between defendant Nos.1