1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1999 in O.S.No.41 of 1988 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry.

2. For the sake of convenience, as this is a first appeal, the parties are referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants only.

3. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case are as follows:

(i) Originally, the first plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 4 on the file of the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry seeking the following reliefs:

(a) partition of plaint A, C and E schedule properties into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff.

(b) for applying partition Act in respect of plaint-B schedule properties and to allot 1/3rd of the sale proceeds realized thereon to the plaintiff or for sale of the machinery in plaint-B schedule and for allotment of 1/3rd of the sale proceeds to the plaintiff and for division of the vacant site into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff.

(c) for partition of plaint-D schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff.

(d) for partition of the plaint F-schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and separate possession.

(e) for future profits on the share of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties till the date of delivery; and

(f) for costs of the suit.

(ii) Subsequently, the second defendant was transposed as the 2nd plaintiff as per the orders, dated 30.10.1998 in I.A.No.1269 of 1998 in O.S.No.41 of 1988 and consequential amendments to the plaint were brought.

(iii) The plaintiffs and the first defendant are brothers and are the sons of late Parasuram Vyas. Late Parasuram Vyas died in the year 1952 leaving behind the plaintiffs, 1st defendant and their mother-Smt. Somini Bai as his heirs. Later, Smt. Somini Bai also died in the year 1980 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the first defendant as her heirs. After the death of late Parasuram Vyas, the plaintiffs, first defendant and their mother partitioned the joint family properties under a registered partition deed dated 06.11.1958. The E-schedule in the said partition deed was kept joint in between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. Out of the same, item-II of the said E-schedule was lost by them in court litigation and as far as item No.3 is concerned, the Government acquired the same and the compensation amount thereto was shared equally. Excluding the said properties, the remaining properties of said E-schedule of partition deed are shown in the present suit as plaint-A schedule. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are entitled each to a 1/3rd share in the plaint-A schedule properties.

(iv) There is an oil Mill at Vizianagaram under the name and style as M/s. Ganesh Rice and Groundnut Oil Mill with machinery, boiler etc. After the partition, the Rice Plant was sold away and the proceeds were divided equally in between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The remaining property of the above said Mill is shown in plaint-B schedule. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are entitled each to 1/3rd share in the said property. The said property being machinery with sheds etc., the same cannot be partitioned in specific into three equal shares. Therefore, the Partition Act has to be applied and the said property is to be sold out as a single Unit and the proceeds realized thereon have to be divided into three equal shares between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.

(v) Subsequent to the said partition, the plaintiffs and the first defendant jointly purchased the properties shown in the plaint-C schedule with their joint funds and for their benefit. Item-II of the plaint C schedule and sub-items therein along with the other properties were purchased by the first defendant in court auction held in E.P.No.14 of 1968 in O.S.No.47 of 1966 of Sub-Court, Vizianagaram. Out of the properties so purchased, item-II of C schedul