JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023, in A.S.No.180 of 2019, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 23.07.2019, in O.S.No.326 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 to 11 are the defendants in O.S.No.326 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. During the pendency of appeal suit, the respondent No.8 herein i.e. the defendant No.8 in O.S.No.326 of 2017, died and the respondent Nos.12 to 14 herein were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.8 herein.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.326 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, with a prayer for declaration of the sale of schedule property held on 16.12.1999 in Final Decree proceedings in I.A.No.103 of 2000, in O.S.No.198 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur and confirmed on 31.10.2001 in favour of the defendant No.8 as null and void and for consequential order to set the sale certificate dated 31.12.2001 issued in I.A.No.103 of 2000, by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, to the defendant No.8 concerning the suit schedule property and for costs.

4. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, after conclusion of trial, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.180 of 2019, before the learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.326 of 2017, is as follows:

The suit schedule property originally belonged to one Ravinuthala Rama Koteswara Rao, the father of the plaintiff, who had acquired the same during his lifetime under a gift executed by his father-in-law. The said Ravinuthala Rama Koteswara Rao died intestate in or about the year 1960. Upon his death, his legal heirs, namely his wife, four sons (including the plaintiff), and two daughters, succeeded to the suit schedule property in equal shares. The plaintiff pleaded that the elder brother of the plaintiff, late R.Venkata Suryanarayana, during his lifetime, instituted a suit in O.S.No.198 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, against his mother, the plaintiff herein, his two other brothers, and two sisters, seeking partition of the suit schedule property, including the residential house existing thereon, into seven equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him. The said suit was decreed preliminarily on 20.12.1984. The plaintiff further pleaded that an application in I.A.No.1374 of 1985 was filed for passing of a final decree for division of the property by metes and bounds in accordance with the preliminary decree and prior to the filing of the said application, the mother of the plaintiff executed a registered Will bequeathing her 1/7th share in the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the 8^th defendant herein and subsequently, during the pendency of the final decree proceedings in January, 1986, she died. The plaintiff further pleaded that during the course of the final decree proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for effecting division of the property and the Commissioner reported that the property was not capable of convenient partition and the Court ordered sale of the property by way of auction among the co-sharers. T