V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Aggrieved by the preliminary decree for partition granted in favour of the mother and daughters, the sons have come up with the above regular appeal.

2. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants 1 to 5 and 9 to 12, Mr. R.A. Chary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants 6 to 8 and 13 to 15, and Mr. P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned counsel, representing Mr. G. Tirupathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The 1st respondent (who is now no more) was the wife of one A. Ganapathi. She along with her daughters, who are respondents 2 to 5 (2nd respondent in the appeal died and their legal heirs are respondents 6 to 11) filed a suit in O.S.No.109 of 2001 for partition and separate possession of the 1/10th share of each one of them in the suit schedule properties. The appellants 1 to 5 were the defendants in the suit. The appellants 3 and 4 having died during the pendency of the appeal, their legal representatives have been brought on record as respondents 6 to 8 and 9 to 12 respectively.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that the 1st plaintiff was the wife, the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the daughters and defendants 1 to 5 are the sons of one A. Ganapathi; that the said Ganapathi died intestate, leaving the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiffs and defendants as his legal heirs; that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of Ganapathi; that after the death of the said Ganapathi in the year 1986, the name of the 1st plaintiff and the names of the defendants were recorded in the Revenue records, but no partition was effected; that the plaintiffs and the defendants continued to be in joint possession of the properties and that when the plaintiffs demanded partition, the defendants refused forcing the plaintiffs to come up with a suit.

5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation; that the suit was not properly valued and the relief sought for was not maintainable; that the suit properties were not the self-acquired properties of Ganapathi; that Ganapathi died on 21-02-1983 and not in 1986 as claimed in the plaint; that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit properties either prior to the demise of Ganapathi or thereafter; that the defendants alone are in exclusive possession; that it is true that Ganapathi died intestate; that the suit properties were acquired by Ganapathi from ancestral nucleus and from the sale of ancestral properties situate in Bhongir; that the Revenue records contained the name of the 1st plaintiff merely as a nominee party; that even assuming that the plaintiffs are entitled to any share, they have been excluded from possession and enjoyment during the last two decades and the plaintiffs have abandoned and waived their right and that there was no cause of action for the suit.

6. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

i. Whether the plaintiffs had abandoned their right of share in the suit lands more than 20 years back and if so, whether the suit claim is in time?

ii. Whether the suit property is incapable of being identified as required under Order 7, Rule 3 CPC and is liable to be dismissed as pleaded by the defendants?

iii. Whether the suit is properly valued and the court fee paid is correct?

iv. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

v. Whether the defendants are entitled to compensatory costs? and

vi. To what relief?

7. The 1st plaintiff, whom we shall refer to as the mother of the other plaintiffs and the defendants, was examined as P.W.1. The 2nd plaintiff was examined as P.W.2. The certified copies of the pahanies for the year 1999-2000 in respect of Survey Nos.1081, 1082, 1083 and 1084 were respectively marked on the side of the plaintiffs as Exs.A-1 to A-4.

8. On the side of the defendants, the 2nd