JUDGMENT :

V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.

1. O.S.No.33 of 2007 was a suit for partition among siblings and some of their legal heirs. After due trial, by a judgment dated 05.06.2012, learned Additional District Judge - cum - Family Court, Ongole decreed the suit in part. That left both sides not satisfied. D2 and D3 preferred A.S.No. 852 of 2012 in terms of section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC. The five plaintiffs before the trial court preferred their cross appeal in terms of Order 41 Rule 1 CPC.

2. Heard arguments of Sri Y. Ramatirtha, the learned counsel for appellants in the appeal and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, the learned senior counsel being assisted by Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar for respondents in the appeal. Written arguments are filed and precedents are cited on both sides.

3. The emanation of dispute is in the context of following facts.

Sri P. Veeraraghavacharyulu and Smt. P. Rajya Lakshmamma are spouses. During their marital life, they were blessed with two sons and six daughters. The sons are Sri P.Mohana Krishnamacharyulu and Sri Kesavacharyulu. The daughters are Smt. N.Padmavathamma, Smt. Suseela Devi, Smt. D.Vijayalakshmi, Smt. N.Radha Devi and Smt. V.Seetha Devi and Kumari Vani Kumari. The last of the children Kumari Vani Kumari died unmarried long time before the suit was laid and nothing concerning her is involved in the suit. Smt. Suseela Devi also died prior to the institution of the suit. The surviving four daughters and the son of late Suseela Devi joined together and filed O.S.NO.33 of 2007 praying for partition of the plaint schedule property into seven equal shares and allot one share to each of the plaintiffs and grant separate possession after considering good and bad qualities of the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule. They also prayed for mesne profits to be determined by a separate application and for costs and such other reliefs.

4. Seven items of immovable properties were shown in the plaint schedule. It is about all those properties, the suit was laid. Initially, the suit was filed as against the eldest son of the Hindu spouses/ Sri P. Mohana krishnamacharyulu/ D1. By the time of the suit, the other son/ Sri P.Kesavacharyulu died. His wife and his daughter were shown as D2 and D3. The plaint was presented on 28.03.2007 and was registered on 11.04.2007. During the pendency of the suit, Sri N.Ramarao and Sri U. Venkataramireddy were impleaded as D4 and D5 by the trial court on 02.06.2008.

5. Sri P.Veera Raghavacharyulu died on 26.02.1986. His wife/ Smt. P. Rajya Lakshmamma died on 08.12.1995. Thus, it was after the death of parents, the suit had come to be filed.

6. In the plaint, it was stated that the marriages of all the daughters of the Hindu spouses were solemnized earlier to 1976. That all the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties. It is further stated that the eldest son of the Hindu spouses/ D1 has been living in Chennai eking out his livelihood. Even after the death of the parents, the property remained joint family properties. Despite demands for partition, there was no positive move from the defendants. Sri Kesavacharyulu who is husband of D2 and father of D3 was managing the properties and was utilizing their profits. For sometime, plaintiffs were given their portions of revenue from the joint family properties. Plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties in the eyes of the law. Since the Hindu spouses had five daughters and two sons, the prayer in the suit is for equal distribution of assets among them. In other words, the property was prayed to be divided into seven equal parts and allot one part to each of the children of the Hindu spouses.

7. D1 who was the eldest son of the Hindu spouses filed a written statement wherein he admitted the relationship among the parties and showed his willingness to have the division of properties into seven parts and asserted that the plaint schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties and by