JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Sunil H. Ganu, Senior Advocate, assisted by and for M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondents.

I. Facts:

(A) A.S. No.80 of 2018:

2. This Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff in O.S. No. 94 of 2010 in the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam District at Anakapalle, challenging the dismissal of the said suit, vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2017.

3. O. S. No. 94 of 2010 was filed by Ayalasomayajula Bhavani Sankara Shastry for partition of immovable properties in the plaint schedule, Item Nos. I to IV into 5 equal shares; for partition of Item Nos. V and VI into 5 equal shares; and for partition of Item No. VII into 70 equal shares and to allot 11 such shares to the plaintiff; and also to partition of Item No. VIII into 10 equal shares, and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and to put him/deliver the same to him by converting the joint possession into separate possession, as also for future profits and costs of the suit.

4. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. Respondent Nos.12 to 15, were the defendants and were added as legal representatives of the deceased 6th defendant. Respondent Nos.5, 8 and 9 were the defendant Nos.5, 8 and 9 in the suit and were set exparte before the learned trial Court.

(i) Plaintiff’s case:

5. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that the plaintiff-Ayalasomayajula Bhavani Sankara Shastry and the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the sons of late Ayalasomayajula Rama Lakshmi Narasimha Sarma (hereinafter referred to as (‘ARLN Sarma’) and deceased 1^st defendant- Smt. Ayalasomayajula Lakshmi Narasamma (mother) (hereinafter referred to as ‘1^st defendant’). Defendant Nos.6 and 8 in the suit, and the mother of the defendant Nos.9 to 11 in the suit, namely, late Nemani Subbalakshmi, are the daughters of ARLN Sarma and the 1^st defendant.

6. As per the plaintiff’s case, Item Nos. I to IV of the plaint schedule properties are jointly purchased from the joint business of late ARLN Sarma, plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 5 before the death of late ARLN Sarma, Item Nos. V and VI of the plaint schedule properties are said to be the properties jointly purchased from the joint business of plaintiff, and defendants No.2 to 5 after the death of their father ARLN Sarma, and the property under Item No.VII was said to be the property jointly purchased by late ARLN Sarma, plaintiff, defendants No.2 to 5 and the mother of defendants No.9 to 11. Item No. VIII i.e., gold, silver and brass items were acquired by the plaintiff’s father and were said to be in the custody of defendants No.1 to 8.

7. The plaintiff claimed to have 1/5th share in Item Nos. I to IV; 1/5th share in Item Nos. V and VI; 11/70th share in Item No.VII and 1/10th share in Item No.VIII of the plaint schedule.

8. The plaintiff’s further case is that the defendants No.2 to 5 had 1/5th share each in Item Nos. I to IV; 1/5th share in Item Nos. V and VI, and defendants No.2 to 5 and defendants No.9 to 11 together 1/7^th share each in Item No.VII of the plaint schedule properties.

9. The plaintiff’s further case is that the father of the plaintiff died in the month of November 1981 intestate leaving behind him (the plaintiff) and the defendants (widow, sons and daughters), who succeeded to their respective shares in different items. The plaintiff himself and the defendants No.2 to 5 jointly run the saw mill business in Item No.III of the plaint schedule property in the name and style of M/s. A.R.L.N. Sarma and sons, but the defendants No.2 to 5 were not rendering the account of the said business. His further case is that the father of the plaintiff also entered into a registered agreement to sell with regard to the property at Anakapalle and during the year 1980 the Government proposed to acquire part of the land in Item No. VII of t