Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure by defendant Nos.2 to 7 & 9 in suit O.S.No.85 of 2003 on the file of III Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed therein.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The 3rd respondent herein was the 1st defendant in the suit while the 4th respondent is the 8th defendant in the suit. The two plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 11/50th share out of the suit schedule property.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they and the defendants are members of Joint Hindu Undivided Family and that Sri Methukupalli Yella Reddy was their common ancestor and that Sri Yella Reddy was having three sons namely M.Mohan Reddy, M.Janga Reddy and M.Bal Reddy. The plaintiffs are the wife and daughter of late Sri M.Janga Reddy. The 8th defendant is also the son of the 1st plaintiff and late Janga Reddy. The 1st defendant in the suit is Sri M.Bal Reddy, the only surviving son of late Sri M.Yella Reddy, the common ancestor. Defendant Nos.2 to 7 are the children of late Sri M.Mohan Reddy while 9th defendant is the wife of late Sri Mohan Reddy.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that lands situate in survey Nos.2/5 admeasuring Ac.2-39 guntas, Ac.20-00 guntas of land in survey No.10, Ac.1-20 guntas of land in survey No.11 and the land admeasuring Ac.6-03 guntas in survey No.13/A at Pocharam Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District are not subjected to any partition and they are owned and possessed by the Hindu Undivided Joint Family. But, however, the plaintiffs and defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property as per their convenience. It is also the specific case that the children of late Mohan Reddy, defendant Nos.2 to 7, tried to alienate the suit schedule properties ignoring the demand of the plaintiffs to partition the same by meets and bounds. After Sri M.Janga Reddy, the younger brother of Sri Mohan Reddy died, several requests have been made to partition the properties and to put each one in separate possession of their shares respectively and since those requests have been ignored, the suit for partition is instituted.

5. The suit schedule has been subsequently amended by substituting the extent of land in survey No.11 as Ac.6-20 guntas instead of Ac.1-20 guntas as was initially noted in the schedule of property in the plaint. One more extent of land Ac.2-00 guntas lying in survey No.12 was also added to the suit schedule property, thus, making the total extent of land as Ac.37.22 guntas.

6. The 2nd defendant has filed a detailed written statement. The relationship between the parties was not disputed and that late Sri M.Yella Reddy was the common ancestor of the parties was not disputed. However, it was denied that the plaintiffs and the defendants are continued as members of Joint Hindu Undivided Family. It is the assertion of the 2nd defendant that there was partition in the family and accordingly, a settlement was worked out way back in the year 1980 between the 3 sons of late Sri M.Yella Reddy namely M.Mohan Reddy, M.Janga Reddy and M.Bal Reddy. After the partition is effected a family settlement deed dated 24.02.1980 was worked out in which the following lands are allotted to the shares of plaintiffs and defendants branches:

7. The late M.Mohan Reddy branch i.e., the father of defendant No.2 to 7 were allotted the lands in Sy.No.10 extent Ac.20.00 gts, Sy.No.11 extent Ac.6.20 gts, Sy.No.13 extent Ac.6.00 gts.

8. The late M.Janga Reddy branch i.e., the father of Plaintiff No.2, defendant No.8 and husband of plaintiff No.1 were allotted the lands in Sy.No.50 extent Ac.20.00 gts, Sy.No.18 extent Ac.10.30 gts and a new house at Pocharam Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R. District.

9. The Defendant No.1 (M.Bal Reddy) was allotted the lands in Sy.No.50 extent of Ac.40.00 gts and a