LRs. who are parties in this appeal should take the shares accordingly.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.02.07.1993 in OS.No.76 of 1983 on the file of the Addl. Sub-Ordinate Judge, Ongole.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed the present suit seeking partition of plaint A, B and C Schedule properties into four equal shares and for delivery of 1/4th share to him, for enquiry into future profits regarding A Schedule properties, and for costs.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :

3. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are brothers and sons of M. Rangaiah. The 3rd defendant was given in adoption to Singamneni Chinna Ananthaiah (for short, Ananthaiah) on 24.3.1940. The marriage of plaintiff was performed in the year 1970. M. Rangaiah died in 1956 and his wife died in 1980.

4. The plaintiff alleged that he along with his wife were living in his in-laws house; that all the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties; that even if he was in an illatum arrangement and was staying with his in-laws, he cannot be deprived of his rights in his natural family. He therefore claimed 1/4th share in all the plaint schedule properties. He further contended that 3rd defendant, who was adopted by their maternal grand-father in 1940, continued to live with his brothers as a member of the joint family since his adoptive father died after adoption; that all the properties of the joint family as well as properties which the 3rd defendant got as an adoptive son were mixed up and treated and enjoyed as joint family properties.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NOS.1 AND 2 :

5. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement contending that M. Rangaiahs family had nothing to do with the family of 3rd defendant who went in adoption to Ananthaiah in 1940 and was living there independently since then, after having been transplanted into his adoptive family; that the two families, i.e., that of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand, and that of the 3rd defendant on the other hand, are separate, distinct and independent; that the plaintiff relinquished his rights in the joint family pursuant to a family arrangement in 1970 on the advice of elders and went in illatum adoption to his father-in- law, i.e., Singamneni Venkata Raghavaiah, marrying his only daughter, since he was getting fertile lands about fifteen acres; that in view of this he had nothing to do with the joint family of defendant Nos.1 and 2; and that the plaint A Schedule is not correct.

6. They however admitted that the joint family of defendant Nos.1 and 2 had only about seven acres of land.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT No.3 :

7. The 3rd defendant filed a separate written statement admitting that he went in adoption to Ananthaiah, their maternal grand-father, in 1940 under a registered Adoption Deed dt.24.03.1940; that he was living separately as a member of his adoptive family and succeeded to his adoptive fathers properties. He supported defendant Nos.1 and 2 insofar as their plea that plaintiff had relinquished his undivided interest in co-parcenery by way of a family arrangement at the time when he went in illatom adoption and after his marriage. He also pleaded that he never joined with plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 or with their family or mother at any time and in any manner whatsoever; and that plaint A, B and C schedule properties are not joint family properties at all and the plaintiff had no share therein.

8. The trial court framed the following issues :

1. Whether the parties are members of joint family and if the suit property is joint family property ?

2. Whether the suit is properly valued and the court fee paid is sufficient ?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?

5. To what relief ?

9. Before the trial court the plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.13. The defendant examined DWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.25.

10. By judgment and decree dt.02.07.1993, the trial court dismissed the suit. It held that