JUDGMENT :

(V. Srinivas, J.)

1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 15.03.2018 in O.S.No.64 of 2014 passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs, and the respondents herein are the defendants. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

3. The above appeal suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties i.e., item Nos.1 to 3 into 12 equal shares and allot 7/12th share to the 1st appellant and for costs. Since the 1st appellant died during pendency of the suit, appellant Nos.2 to 6 are brought on record as his legal representatives.

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

(i) Originally the plaint schedule property, which consists of three items belongs to one Munipalli Venkaiah, who died intestate in the year, 1950 leaving behind his three sons viz. Munipalli Kotaiah, Munipalli Subbaiah and Munipalli Ramaiah and three daughters viz. Ponugupati Basavamma, Mallampalli Ponchaitramma and Kattavarapu Seetha. All the daughters of Munipalli Venkaiah died long back.

(ii) The first son of M.Venkaiah by name M.Kotaiah died issueless in the year, 1967 and his third son by name M.Ramaiah also died in the year, 2003 leaving behind his children i.e. 1st plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5.

(iii) The second son by name M.Subbaiah, his wife Kotilingamma and their daughter by name Venkataratnam were also died in the years 1939, 2008 and 2006 respectively. Since there are no legal heirs, the share of M.Subbaiah devolved upon his brothers, M.Kotaiah and M.Ramaiah equally.

(iv) The first son of M.Ramaiah by name M.Subbarao (1st plaintiff) was given in adoption to M.Kotaiah, that though he was given adoption, he is entitled to get 1/12th share from out of 6/12th share of his natural father, M.Ramaiah, since there was no partition of the plaint schedule properties.

(v) Initially, M.Ramaiah and later M.Prasada Rao being the elder of the family, used to manage the properties. The 1st plaintiff, in total, got 7/12th share i.e. as adopted son of M.Kotaiah succeeded to 6/12th share and 1/12th share from out of 6/12th share of M.Ramaiah. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 succeeded to 5/12th share and each of them got 1/12th share of the schedule property.

(vi) The 1st plaintiff got issued legal notice on 08-04-2013 for partition of item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property, for which the 1st respondent sent reply with false allegations. They pray for a decree.

5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement with adoption memo of defendant Nos.2 to 5, denying the various averments made in the plaint, stating as follows:

(i) Item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property are the self-acquired properties of their paternal grandfather, M.Venkaiah. M.Venkaiah along with his elder son M.Kotaiah executed a registered gift deed dated 26.06.1929 in favour of his second son Subbaiah and third son by name Ramaiah, who is minor, said to be represented by his brother Subbaiah.

(ii) One of the donee’s under the above said gift deed by name, M.Subbaiah died in the year 1939 leaving behind his wife, Kotilingamma and daughter, Venkatarattamma as legal heirs.

(iii) The father of the 1stdefendant, M.Ramaiah and legal heirs of M.Subbaiah by names Venkatarattamma and Kotilingamma executed two gift deeds to an extent of 300 sq.yards each in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to Rajeswari and Gadapa Apparao and Neelikonda Venkayamma on 25.04.1977 and 29.12.1977 respectively, which were duly executed, attested, accepted and acted upon by the donees.

(iv) Again, same donors executed another registered gift deed dated 30.12.1977, the remaining extent in item No.1 of the schedule property to the 1st defendant. Same was also duly executed, attested, and registered and acted upon.

(v) The 1st defendant, Kotilingamma and her daughter Venkatarattamma sold two bits of site to an extent of 235 sq yards of site each on 11.12.