1. Defendants 1, 9, 10 & 12 filed this Appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 31.1.1995 passed in O.S.No. 80 of 1984 by the Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy at Medak District, whereby the suit was decreed for partition of schedule property into five equal shares declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share each in the schedule property.

2. For convenience, the ranks given to the parties before the trial Court will be adopted through out this judgment.

3a) The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of schedule property into five equal shares and to allot one such share to each of them alleging that Sangappa S/o Siddaramshetty, who was the common ancestor of the parties, died intestate about 14 years ago leaving behind, his five daughters as his heirs. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 are his daughters. His other daughter Chandramma died about 10 years ago leaving behind defendants 3 to 8 as legal heirs, to succeed her estate.

3b) Shivamma wife of Sangappa predeceased to him. Late Sangappa was the native of Hangerga “K” Village, Narayankhed Taluk and exclusive owner of plaint ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties. After the death of Sangappa the plaintiffs 1 and 2, D1, D2 and Chandramma become entitled to equal shares. After the death of Chandramma her 1/5th share was devolved upon D3 to D8 in equal shares.

3c) After the death of Sangappa, his daughters have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with children of Chandramma D3 to D8.

3d) The schedule property was not divided by metes and bounds and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of schedule property. Defendant No. 12 is the husband of D1and D9 to D11 are their children. With illegal motive they tried to dispose off some of the properties to third parties to deprive the plaintiffs to claim their due share, on coming to know the same, the plaintiffs demanded defendants for partition and separate possession but they did not co-operate for the same. However, the plaintiffs obtained certified copies of revenue records in March 1984 and they learnt that D1 and D2 managed the revenue authorities, got mutated their names in the revenue records. The mutation of names of D1 and D2 and Defendants 9 to 12 in the revenue records will not create any interest or title to the property. The plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit schedule property. Hence they sought for a decree for partition of the schedule property into five equal shares and allot one such share to each of the plaintiffs.

3e) Defendant Nos. 2 to 8 remained ex-parte. Defendants 1, 9, 10, 11, and 12 resisted the claim of the plaintiffs by filing written statement, denying material allegations of plaint while admitting the relationship between parties and ownership of the property of Sangappa and death of Sangappa about 15 years back in the moth of November 1970.

3f) The defendants denied the contention of plaintiffs that the property of Sangappa devolved upon plaintiffs and D1 and D2 and late Chandramma and asserted that they were never in joint possession and enjoyment of the property.

3g)As per desire of plaintiffs, D1 and D2, and late Chandramma and D12, the suit lands were recorded in the name of D9 and D10. Therefore, the plaintiffs are estoped from claiming any share in the suit properties. The first daughter of late Chandramma and the plaintiffs were given in marriage to others. When the 4th daughter, defendant No. 1 and 5th daughter D2 were born, late Sangappa gave up his hopes to beget any male child through his wife. Therefore, Sangappa has taken D12 in illatom adoption as per the custom prevailing in the community with an agreement that for all purposes D-12 has a right on par with natural son and he has to marry his fourth daughter Veeramma, serve the family and help him in day to day affairs. Late Sangappa own and possessed suit schedule “A’ & ‘B’ immovable properties and some gold in which D-12 is entitled to half share during the lif