M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt. 28-08-1997 in O.S. No. 7 of 1983 of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal.

2. The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the suit for partition of plaint A and B schedule properties and for allotment of 1/18th share therein to each of them and put them in possession thereof. Since the plaintiffs were minors as on the date of filing of the suit i.e. 25-01-1983, their maternal grandfather Ch. Narasimha Reddy filed it on their behalf as their guardian.

3. Late Linga Reddy is the father and Defendant No. 13 is the mother of Late Narayan Reddy, defendant Nos. 1, 8 and 9 and one Satyavathi. Linga Reddy died in 1977.

4. The 1st defendant is the father of plaintiffs. Narayana Reddy died in 1967. The 2nd defendant is the wife and defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are the children of Narayana Reddy. Defendant Nos. 10 to 12 are daughters of one Satyavathi, the younger sister of 1st defendant, who had died in 1975.

THE PLAINT

5. According to the plaintiffs, Linga Reddy and his two sons Narayanreddy and 1st defendant constituted a joint Hindu family governed by Mithakshara school of Hindu Law; the deceased Linga Reddy was it's Manager; in 1967 Narayana Reddy, husband of 2nd defendant died; by then defendant Nos. 3 to 7 were only children; plaint A and B schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties held and possessed by the joint family and the plaintiffs and defendants are legally in joint possession thereof.

6. They contended that after the death of Narayana Reddy in 1967, 2nd defendant and 13th defendant and other women folk in the family could not put up together in the same house and there was no possibility for a peaceful and congenial atmosphere; the 2nd defendant had been residing in the family house (item-1 of B schedule); that late Linga Reddy with a view to avoid friction and a bad atmosphere in the family was trying to please 2nd defendant and he executed Ex. B-1 dt. 01-05-1970 in her favour releasing his rights therein stating that the said property was the sthreedhana property of 2nd defendant, which is incorrect; the said house was acquired from income out of the joint family properties and the family income; and 2nd defendant was not having any sthreedhana property as such nor was any such property utilized for acquisition of the house. The plaintiffs contended that item-1 of B schedule was constructed by late Linga Reddy himself and there is sufficient evidence to prove it including evidence that the entire construction was done utilizing their family funds. According to plaintiffs, properties were mortgaged, loans were obtained and construction was made with the family funds. They contended that in 1970, defendant No. 2 brought a lot of pressure on Linga Reddy and obtained Ex. B-1 release deed dt. 01-05-1970. They contended that disputes arose about partition of properties, matter was referred to certain elders and all parties were made to give statements before the said elders. According to them, Linga Reddy also made one statement before the elders on 04-03-1973, wherein he asserted that he executed Ex. B-1 under coercion, that item 1 of B schedule was never sthreedhana property of 2nd defendant and it was joint family property; and in view of this statement, Ex. B-1 is void and did not confer any right of 2nd defendant in respect of the house.

7. They further contended that during 1973-74, misunderstandings arose between parties and attempt was made to partition the properties. According to the plaintiffs, the elders decided to partition the agricultural properties but the same was not implemented because of the disagreement between the parties and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were only tentatively put in possession in separate extent of lands. They admitted that 2nd defendant even sold some lands under her possession in favour of third parties but claimed that they were unaware of the details and particulars the