Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

The revision petitioner Ram Gopal Patwari S/o. Mohan Lal Patwari is no other than sole defendant of O.S.No.516 of 2006 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is the suit filed against him by his brother Bharatlal Patwari since died represented by his LRs i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 viz., wife, 4 sons and married daughter. It is the suit for partition and separate possession of jointly purchased property in plot No.87/B, survey No.403 (old 120/12) covered by municipal Nos.8-2-120/115/14, Shaikpet Village, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad under registered document No.71/81 dated 12.01.1981 admeasuring 1611 square yards bounded by North: land of Sri V. Narayan Das, West : open land plot No.86 and East and South road. The plaint averments show in nutshell that 1st plaintiff supra and sole defendant purchased the property supra for consideration on 12.01.1981 and rectification deed No.388/20.02.1981 of Sub Registrar Khairthabad, Hyderabad, rectify the extent of land since wrongly mentioned in the original document No.71/12-1-81 and after purchase while they are in joint peaceful possession and enjoyment, as plaintiff had to frequently for his business purposes stay at Tamilnadu and defendant used to maintain the accounts including profits in the affairs of the suit property and to settle the same including for amicable mutual partition and accounting of profits; the plaintiff despite demanding the defendant, for his half share in the property, defendant is prolonging on one pretext or the other with delaying tactics in dubious mode, plaintiff cause issued telephonic notice dated 22.09.2006 and also sent by registered post acknowledgement due on 27.09.2006, reiterating the demands that was received by the defendant and replied on 30.09.2006 with untenable grounds while admitting the joint purchase of the property under the document supra. The plaintiff cause issued rejoinder by clarification for said notice and reply on 10.10.2006, denying the reply for there is no family partition as alleged in the reply and to send any documents in proof if at all for which no documents or proof received. It is since making a false claim and by setting up the exclusive rights by the defendant over the property including in the caveat lodged and since trying to demolish the structures and make constructions of the commercial complex including by covering the plot of his 2 sons, which he cannot, particularly in relation to the suit property which is still joint of defendant and 1st plaintiff for not entitled to exclusively deal with, the plaintiff with no option is constrained to file the suit from the cause of action for the suit reliefs by valuing as per the Sub Registrar basic value for the property mentioned Rs.8,10,25,000/- in seeking partition preliminary decree and separate possession after division by demarcation of the half share.

2. The written statement filed by the defendant against said suit claim is while denying the plaint averments with contentions of suit claim is barred by limitation and there was oral family partition in the year, 1982 in the lifetime of father of 1st plaintiff and defendant allotting the plaintiff's half share in favour of the defendant by making sole owner for entire suit property covered by registered sale deed No.71/12-1-81 and defendant obtained relaxation for construction of building vide G.O.Ms. No.260 (MA) dated 22.02.1983 and the municipal permission No.67/73 dated 11.01.1985 and the oral partition of 1982 reduced to writing on 21.11.1985 describing as release deed as per earlier oral partition and defendant having constructed house in the suit plot performed gruhapravesham on 28.11.1987 and the photos and videos evidence presence of plaintiff, the defendant's eldest son Sanjay Patwari's marriage was also performed in that constructed house in the suit plot on 15.02.1989 and plaintiff attended the same with family members also evidenced by photo