The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a prior partition, and in the absence of documentary evidence, unchallenged evidence of the opposing party can be relied upon. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of documentary proof in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J. - This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 03.08.2000, in O.S. No.8 of 1989 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the said Suit.

2. The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the above said suit for partition of plaint schedule properties into three equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot and deliver possession of two such shares to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and directing the first defendant to pay the mesne profits to be ascertained on a separate application.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.8 of 1989, are as under:

One Sk.Nannu Saheb was a resident of Thimmayapalem. He was owning some properties. The plaintiffs 1 and 2, first defendant and one Sk.Kalesha are the sons of the said Nannu Saheb. Originally they were residents of Thimmayapalem village, but they left that village and settled at Atmakur and living together. The first defendant is the eldest of them and he is managing the properties. With the joint exertions of all the brothers and with the sale proceeds of the properties at Thimmayapalem, the schedule properties were purchased and the first defendant being the eldest among the brothers, he was managing the family, the sale deeds were taken in his name with an understanding that all the brothers shall have equal shares. While so, the above said Sk.Kalesha, one of the brothers, relinquished his rights in all the properties and executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 24.07.1969 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have been demanding the first defendant to effect partition of the plaint schedule properties and deliver their 2/3 share to them, as the first defendant is not rendering correct accounts, at last, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 got issued notice to the first defendant on 12.12.1988 calling upon him to co-operate with them to effect partition. On 31.12.1988, the first defendant sent a reply notice with all false and frivolous allegations.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

i) The first defendant was managing the properties and acquired some properties and got some of them registered in his name as well as in the name of his brothers inclusive of plaintiffs 1 and 2. The said acquisitions are from his own earnings. Sk.Kalesha, one of the brothers, wanted to relinquish and executed a relinquishment deed dated 27.04.1969. The first defendant paid Rs.5,000/- to his brother Kalesha and obtained a registered relinquishment deed dated 27.04.1969. In the month of April 1985 all the properties except D schedule property, annexed to the written statement, was partitioned among the parties interse. In the said partition, the first defendant got some landed properties. The second plaintiff sold away his undivided share of the property under agreement of sale dated 01.09.1984 for Rs.27,000/- in favour of the first defendant's sons and their sister-in-law and put them in possession of the same. Thus, the properties fell to the share of second plaintiff were alienated in favour of the sons of the first defendant under agreement dated 01.09.1984. Similarly, the first plaintiff also sold away some of his share of properties to the first defendant, his sons and to his daughter-in-law Bibijan. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant still owned and retained lands of about Ac.39.41 cents at Thimmayapalem village as joint properties and are sharing the usufruct of the standing trees and the grazing fees realized thereon.

ii) Plaint A schedule property disclosed only the properties situated in Atmakur, though properties are still available at Thim