Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

1. Status of the Parties and Suit History * The suit was filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs (widow, four sons, and two daughters of late Cheedella Nagabushanam) against Cheedella Lakshmi Narasimha Rao (the sole defendant) in O.S. No. 60 of 1984. * The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 31.12.1991, and the plaintiffs appealed. * During the pendency of the appeal, several plaintiffs and the defendant died, and their legal representatives were brought on record. (!) (!) (!) (!)

2. Reliefs Sought * The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of 7 items of property listed in the plaint schedule. * They claimed entitlement to 1/8th share each in the properties, past profits for three years, and future profits. (!) (!)

3. Findings on Partition and Joint Family Status * The trial court held that there was no partition of joint family properties between the late Nagabushanam and the defendant in 1944. * The appellate court upheld this finding, ruling that the alleged oral partition of 1944 was untrue and set up fraudulently by the defendant to prolong the suit. * Evidence such as joint sale deeds (e.g., Ex. A.12, Ex. A.13) and lease letters (Ex. A.19 to Ex. A.28) proved that the brothers continued to hold and enjoy properties jointly even after 1944. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

4. Disposition of Specific Property Items * Item 3 (Government Allotment): Admittedly allotted in favor of the defendant; not impressed into joint family properties. Plaintiffs cannot claim partition. (!) (!) * Item 6 (Fertilizer Shops): Belong to the defendant; plaintiffs are not entitled to any share or accounting of profits. (!) (!) (!) * Item 1 (Vacant Site, 1200 sq. yards): The defendant acquired title otherwise (adverse possession). Although there was an account book entry (Ex. A.2) suggesting joint purchase, the defendant's long-standing exclusive possession and lack of response from Nagabushanam extinguished the plaintiffs' rights. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) * Item 5 (Agricultural Land, Yerrupalem): Purchased by Nagabushanam with his own funds (government teacher income). The defendant relinquished any claim, so it belongs exclusively to the plaintiffs. No partition required. (!) (!) (!) * Item 4 (Ancestral House, Yerrupalem): The plaintiffs are entitled to their half share as they are already in possession of that portion via a tenant. No further division needed. (!) (!) (!) * Item 7 (Agricultural Land, Velagaleru): Partially acquired by the government and partially sold by the defendant. The remaining extent (Ac. 1.09 and add) is allotted to the plaintiffs by equity. No further division needed. (!) (!) (!) * Item 2 (Land, Rayanpadu): The plaintiffs took possession of the western half (Ac. 8.96 cents) and the defendant the eastern half (Ac. 8.96 cents) tentatively after a tenancy litigation, but without proper metes and bounds demarcation. The court ordered the appointment of a Commissioner to demarcate and divide the property equally. (!) (!) [