JUDGMENT :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 16.03.1998 in OS. No. 293 of 1989 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares, but subsequently amended to four equal shares and the allotment of one such share to the plaintiff. In addition, future mesne profits are also sought.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit only.

4. The plaintiff in the suit is one Smt. M. Venkata Narasamma. She has filed a very brief plaint. According to the plaint, the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughters of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1 and brother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 and 4. They are all the children of P. Veerareddy and defendant No. 1. Thus, defendant No. 1 is the mother of the plaintiff and of defendant Nos. 2 to 4. According to the plaint, P. Veera Reddy died on 03.02.1970. Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to a 1/5th share; subsequently amended to 1/4th share. The schedule property is the self acquired property of late P. Veerareddy. Therefore, the plaint is filed seeking partition.

5. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement. She clearly and categorically asserted in the written statement which is filed in Telugu that suit is hopelessly barred by time. It is mentioned by defendant No. 1 that the suit schedule property belongs exclusively to defendant No. 2. According to the written statement, the husband late P. Veerareddy gave away the property to defendant No. 2 in the presence of certain people and defendant No. 2 has been enjoying the same with absolute rights to the knowledge of everyone concerned. Defendant No. 2 has declared the said property as his property in the land ceiling declaration, obtained a loan etc., and is thus exercising rights of ownership. Therefore, she prays that the suit should be dismissed. Defendant No. 2 also filed a written statement stating that as he is the sole male heir, the entire properties were given to him as per a family arrangement prior to the death of P. Veerareddy itself with an obligation to discharge certain debts. He also asserts that he has filed land ceiling declaration, discharged debts that were availed by his father and mother; developed the properties etc. Therefore, he contends that the suit is not maintainable. Later, defendant No. 1 died and the suit against her was abated. The plaintiff then sought an amendment and claimed 1/4th share in the property. Defendant No. 2 then contended in reply by filing a written statement that defendant No. 1 did not die intestate and that she executed a Will dated 14.03.1996 in favour of defendant No. 2.

6. Basing on the pleadings, about 9 issues were framed by the Court below, which are as follows:

(1) Whether Porddy Veerareddy gave his entire properties including the plaint schedule properties to the 2nd defendant?

(2) It is a fact that the plaint schedule properties were entered in the name of the 1st defendant in all official revenue records and if so, what is its effect and validity?

(3) Whether an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was gifted to the 2nd defendant by his parents-in-law, if so is it valid and legal?

(4) Is it is a fact that there were debts due by Veerareddy and whether the same were discharged with the gift of Rs. 25,000/- to the defendant at the time of his marriage?

(5) Whether the gift deed dated 12.12.1957 by the D1 to D2's father created exclusive rights to the D2?

(6) Is the court fee paid correct?

(7) Is the plaintiff not entitled to the partition of the plaint schedule property?

(8) What are the future profits payable to the plaintiff?

(9) To what relief ?

7. The parties went to trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW. 1 was examined and Exs. A.1 to A.7 were marked. For the defendants, DWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. B.1 to B.28 were marked. In additio