M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. The plaintiffs, who are partly aggrieved of the preliminary decree in so far as it related to the allotment of smaller extents of shares in the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, had preferred this appeal against the said preliminary decree and the judgment dated 30.06.2006 of the learned V Additional District Judge (Judge, Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District passed in O.S.No.140 of 2003.

2. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. The respondents 2 and 3 are stated to be not necessary parties. Though the 1st respondent and the respondents 4 to 6 had put in appearance and are represented by their respective counsel, none appeared and no arguments were advanced on behalf of the said respondents, despite listing the matter for hearing the arguments on the side of the said respondents.

3. In this appeal suit, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘appellants/plaintiffs’ and ‘respondents/defendants’ for convenience and clarity.

4. This Court of first appeal being the last court of fact, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings and the chronology of events leading to the filing of this first