1. This Second Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants questioning the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 in A.S.No.55 of 2012 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, wherein the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by them and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.173 of 2002 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, FAC: V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada.

2. The brief facts of the case are thus:

(a) The suit is for partition of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and for allotment of one such share to plaintiff and also mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendants are the children of Aravapalli Venkata Ratnam and Venkayamma. The plaint schedule property was the self acquired property of Late Aravapalli Venkata Ratnam and besides that the said Ratnam was also having properties at Gudavalli and Penamaluru villages. About 25 years ago, there was oral partition between said Ratnam and his sons i.e. D.1 to D.3 and in the said partition, the properties at Gudavalli and Penamaluru villages fell to the share of D.1 to D.3 and whereas the plaint schedule property fell to the share of said Ratnam and he enjoyed the same during his lifetime. He died intestate on 23.04.1993 leaving behind him the plaint schedule property and defendants and his wife as his LRs. After death of Ratnam, his wife—Venkayamma enjoyed usufructs and the plaintiff used to send money for her maintenance. While-so, Venkayamma also died intestate on 12.12.2001 and since then the plaint schedule property has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff contended that though she requested the defendants to cooperate with her for partition, they did not respond. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendants but they avoided taking notices. Hence, the suit.

(b) The Defendants 1 to 3 filed common written statement admitting the relationship of the parties but they denied the material allegation in the plaint. They contended that the late Ratnam has no self acquired properties and the properties at Gudavalli, Penamaluru and Poraniki are the ancestral properties. The plaintiff has no cause of action and the plaintiff was not in joint possession of the property at any time, hence the court fee paid on the plaint was not correct. The suit property and some other properties situated in Gudavalli and Penamaluru were the ancestral properties of Venkata Ratnam and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the said Venkata Ratnam got those properties in a partition along with his brothers in the year 1941. In the said partition, the plaint schedule property and other properties, referred above, fell to the share of Venkata Ratnam. Since then, Venkata Ratnam and his three sons have been enjoying those properties jointly till the year 1971. In 1971, an oral partition was effected between Venkata Ratnam and Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and later on 2.06.1980, a Memorandum of Past Partition List was executed by them confirming the earlier partition. In the partition, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of Venkata Ratnam with limited rights and it was agreed that Venkata Ratnam and his wife shall enjoy the plaint schedule property with life interest and after their demise, the property should devolve on defendant Nos. 1 to 3 equally with absolute rights. Venkata Ratnam performed the marriages of plaintiff and 4th defendant prior to 1986 by spending huge amounts and at the time of their marriages, D.1 to D.3 and their father gave some properties to them towards Pasupukunkuma and therefore, the plaintiff and 4th defendant are not coparceners and they are not entitled to any share.

(c) D.1 to D.3 filed amended Written Statement and took the plea that the plaint schedule property and other immovable properties were the ancestral properties of Venkata Ratnam and D.1 to D.3 and they