V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit for partition, the plaintiff has come up with the above appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Godi Rajeswarai, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 5 to 8, Mr. P. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and Mr. Meharchnd Noori, learned counsel for the 11th respondent.

3. The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak, seeking partition and separate possession of her ?th share in the properties described in Schedules A, B, C and D of the plaint. The case of the appellant/ plaintiff in the suit was that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are the daughters of one Burigari Kista Reddy; that the said Kista Reddy was the absolute owner of properties detailed in the plaint schedules; that they were all his self-acquired properties; that Kista Reddy died intestate in the year 1971 leaving behind his wife Satyamma and 5 daughters who are appellant/plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4; that after the death of the father Kista Reddy, the name of the mother namely Satyamma was entered in the revenue records;