Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.

1. The 1st defendant who lost the suit in both the Courts below is the Appellant. He died after filing of the second appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record. Mother of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 by name Ladi Venkata Narasamma is elder sister of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is younger sister of Venkata Narasamma and the 1st defendant. All of them are children of Baratam Narayana Murty and the 3rd defendant. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 filed the suit in the trial Court for possession of the plaint schedule property, for profits both past and future in respect thereof. The plaint schedule property consists of Ac.1-80 cents of land. The plaintiffs filed the suit on the basis of Ex.A.1 registered settlement deed dated 27.02.1958 executed by Baratam Narayana Murty on his behalf and on behalf of his minor son - the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs' mother for the suit property, after reserving life interest therein to himself. Narayana Murty died on 20.10.1989. The plaintiffs' mother Venkata Narasamma died on 28.10.1987. After death of the plaintiffs mother, the plaintiffs got issued Ex.A.2 notice dated 06.06.1988 when Narayana Murty intended to execute documents in respect of the suit land. For the said notice, Narayana Murty got issued Ex.A.3 reply dated 27.06.1988. Subsequently, Narayana Murty executed Ex.B.3 registered will dated 09.08.1988 in respect of his properties in favour of the 1st defendant. In that background, the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of the suit property. The 1st defendant opposed the suit on the ground that Ex.A.1 settlement is void and illegal and is not binding on him and that Late Narayana Murty executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiffs' mother nominally when the plaintiffs' father Krishna Murty was giving trouble to Narayana Murty by way of harassing the plaintiffs' mother. It is further contended by the 1st defendant inter alia that the suit property is part of joint family property and that the suit land is not reasonable part of the joint family property. After trial, the trial Court held that the suit property is not part of joint family property and upheld Ex.A.1 settlement deed and consequently granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal by the 1st defendant, the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that suit property is part of the joint family property property and therefore Ex.A.1 is valid in law. The lower Appellate Court further held that the 1st defendant who did not question Ex.A.1 settlement deed within three years of he attaining the age of majority, is not entitled to resist the plaintiffs' claim; and confirmed decree of the trial Court. Therefore, the 1st defendant approached this Court with this second appeal.

2. At the time of the admission of the second appeal, without framing any substantial question of law, the second appeal was admitted. Therefore, it is endeavour of this Court to find whether any substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. In the memorandum of grounds of the second appeal, the appellant's counsel noted the following points as substantial questions of law:

a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Lower Appellate Court is right in confirming the decree of the trial Court especially when the Lower Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court that the suit schedule property was separate property of the Appellant father and held that suit property was joint family property of the Appellant and his father?

b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit, as the schedule property is substantial (nearly half) part of joint family property, especially when there is no proof that the appellants joint family has more than (4) Acres, more so, when the appellant could not be expected to establish a negative fact?

c) Whether, on the facts and in the circ