JUDGMENT :

G. Sridevi, J.

1. The present Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 04.06.2012 passed in O.S.No.525 of 2007 on the file of the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, wherein and whereby, the suit filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and allotment of half share to the respondents/plaintiffs and half share to the appellants/defendants, was decreed.

2. Appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S.No.525 of 2007, before the trial Court, will be adopted throughout this judgment.

3. The plaintiffs herein filed the above suit with the following reliefs :

(1) To pass a judgment and decree that the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the suit schedule A, B & C properties and for partition and separate possession of such half share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs and half share to the defendants in A to C schedule property.

(2) A commissioner be appointed to make partition of the suit schedule property and for giving separate possession of plaintiffs’ share of the property by metes and bunds.

4. The facts, in brief, of the plaint are that one late Annasani @ Hanumasani Laxmaiah was the owner of the schedule properties through ancestors by succession and he got two wives namely i.e., 1st plaintiff and Ramulamma, the mother of defendants 1 to 7. The 2nd plaintiff is the son of the 1st plaintiff and the defendants are the children of Ramulamma, who is the second wife of Hanumasani Laxmaiah. The plaint schedule properties are the properties left by Laxmaiah. The plaintiffs made several demands for partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bunds, but the defendants did not cooperate for the partition. The plaintiffs submit that they are entitled to half share and the defendants are entitled to half share in the plaint schedule properties. Late Laxmaiah also executed a partition deed, dated 25.06.1989 bequeathing half share to each of the wives and it should be acted upon, but the defendants refused to partition the schedule properties. While the things stood thus, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants in collusion with the revenue officials got mutated the name of their mother in the revenue records suppressing true facts in respect of ‘C’ schedule property. It is also submitted that in the pahanies for the years 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2001-2002, the name of the 1st plaintiff was shown as possessor of ‘C’ schedule property. The plaintiffs came to know that with an intention to cause loss to the plaintiffs, the defendants are trying to dispose of the plaint schedule properties and as such the plaintiffs got issued legal notice, dated 18.03.2008, but the defendants did not respond to the same. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the above suit.

5. The 1st defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants. In the written statement, the defendants admitted their relationship with the plaintiffs and also admitted that the plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of late Laxmaiah, but they denied that the plaintiffs and the defendants are joint owners of the suit scheduled properties. It is further stated in the written statement that the house bearing No.3-6-30, to an extent of 360 square yards was purchased by the defendants from its original owner in the year 1993 and the house bearing No.3-6-52 admeasuring 144 square yards was given to their mother by late Laxmaiah and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also stated that during the life time of Laxmaiah, the defendants and plaintiffs have entered into an agreement of sale with M/s. Jana Chaitanya Housing Private Limited on 26.11.1998 in respect of the land in Sy.No.518 admeasuring Ac.1.17 gts.; Sy.No.519 admeasuring Ac.1.33 gts. and