JUDGMENT :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was laid for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs 1 and 2, another such share to the plaintiffs 3 and 4 each, dividing by metes and bounds, taking into consideration good and bad qualities of the land and put them in separate possession of their respective shares as well as for costs.

2. During pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and the second plaintiff, being his L.R., then on record, continued with no other L.R., brought on record. The 1st defendant also died during pendency of the suit and his L.Rs., being the defendants 2 to 4 and the defendants 8 to 10, were brought on record during the suit proceedings. During pendency of this appeal, the 2nd plaintiff died and his L.Rs., being the appellants 5 to 7 were brought on record. Similarly, the 4th plaintiff died during pendency of this appeal and his L.Rs., being the appellants 8 and 9, were brought on record. The second defendant died, whose L.Rs. were brought on record being the respondents 12 to 16. The 3rd defendant also died and his L.R., being the respondent No. 11 was brought on record.

3. The appeal against the defendants 7 and 8 was dismissed for default by an order of this Court dated 30.3.2001. It was not restored.

4. The parties as arrayed in the suit are being referred to in this appeal, for convenience.

5. The suit was originally laid in OS No. 146 of 1983 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati. It was transferred to the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Puttur, where it was renumbered in OS No. 20 of 1990. The suit was dismissed by the decree and judgment dated 14.12.1994. Against it, the present appeal is preferred.

6. The relationship among the parties to this appeal is not in dispute. The pedigree (genealogy) among the original parties to the suit is as follows:

(Material on record did not make available the names of both the wives of Sri China Gangaiah Son of Sri Kannaiah and also his two daughters. Sri Kannaiah's branch is not a party to the suit and to this appeal)

7. The plaint 'A and C' schedule properties are located in Taduku Village and the plaint 'B' schedule property is situated in Venugopalapuram Village of erstwhile Puttur Taluq of Chittoor District.

8. Before embarking upon the discussion of the evidence and material on record, it is desirable to consider the case of the parties in the available pleadings, set forth by them.

9. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint, in brief is, as follows:

(i) That all the parties to the suit constituted an undivided joint Hindu family. The 1st defendant was the manager of this the joint family which remained undivided in status. Plaint 'A to C' schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties. Since members in this family grew in number, it became unmanageable and therefore, by a tentative arrangement, without any division by metes and bounds and for the sake of convenience, the 1st defendant and his branch, late Krishnaiah's branch, the 5th defendant and his branch and the 1st plaintiff and his branch, went on cultivating some portions of plaint A-schedule lands, paying land revenue separately for the extent, which was being cultivated by each branch. Large portions of the land of this the joint family remained uncultivated. The members of the joint family began to live in some portions of C-schedule house properties, according to their convenience, without there being division by metes and bounds.

(ii) The plaint B-schedule property was covered with wild growth. Therefore, using the joint family funds and efforts of members of the joint family, it was cleared improving the profile of the land. But it remained uncultivated. It is in joint possession of all the parties.

(iii) The patta in respect of plaint 'A and B' schedule properties always is in the name of the 1st defendant, being the manager of the joint fa