JUDGMENT :

1. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.38 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram are the appellants, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased-3rd plaintiff.

2. The appellants and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein after referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, seeking relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs. After the death of the 3rd plaintiff, her legal representatives were added as defendant Nos.4 to 6 and claimed the relief that the plaint schedule properties be divide into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant Nos.4 to 6, and for possession and also compensation of Rs.3,000/- for the years 1981 to 1985, and for costs.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was purchased by late Buddharaju Butchiraju, son of Veeraraghava Raju and his sister, late Subbayamma @ Subhadrayamma, wife of the 1st plaintiff and mother of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 during their minority, under the sale deed, dated 30.01.1942 (Ex.A1). They submit that the father of Butchiraju and Subhadrayamma was managing the plaint ‘A’ schedule property till his death about eight years back. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the wife of the 1st plaintiff Smt Subbayamma @ Subhadrayamma died intestate about 20 years back, leaving the plaintiffs alone as her heirs, due to that her share in plaint ‘A’ schedule property devolved on them, which was joint not partitioned. The plaintiffs submit that the 2nd plaintiff married her maternal uncle’s son Bhaskararaju, son of Buddharaju Butchiraju, due to that the other co-owners are closely related and the plaint schedule property was managed by Butchiraju till his death about eight years back, later the son of Buddharaju Butchiraju, i.e., Bhaskararaju and Neeladriraju were managing the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and said Bhaskararaju is no other than the husband of the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs have stated that themselves and Buddharaju Butchiraju and his sons Bhaskararaju and Neeladriraju were enjoying ‘A’ schedule property as co-owners with joint possession, wherein the plaintiffs were given their share of profits till three years back, but on enquiry they came to know that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 purchased the entire ‘A’ schedule land from Buddharaju Bhaskararaju and Neeladriraju, and no profits were given to them. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that in ‘A’ schedule property, Buddharaju Butchiraju, father of Bhaskararaju and Neeladriraju have got only ½ share, whereas the wife of the 1st plaintiff and mother of plaintiffs 2 and 3, and sister of Butchiraju own the other ½ share as per Ex.A1 sale deed, dated 30.01.1942. They further stated that they issued legal notice to the defendants and their vendors, which received by the 2nd defendant, but failed to give any reply and then they filed suit for partition.

5. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 resisted the claim of the plaintiffs by filing written statement before the trial Court. It is the contention of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 that the relationship set up in between the plaintiffs and Buddharaju Butchiraju is denied, and they pleaded that they are not aware about the sale deed, dated 30.01.1942 (Ex.A1). It is the contention of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 that plaint ‘A’ schedule property was never in joint possession, which never enjoyed by the plaintiffs, or by their alleged predecessors as co owners, and to their knowledge Butchiraju and his successors, i.e., wife and sons of Butchiraju were alone enjoying the plaint ‘A’ schedule property of their own right as absolute owners. They submit that the wife of Butchiraju by name Smt Ramavathi and her sons Bhaskararaju and Neeladrira