JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013 in O.S.No.33 of 2008 passed by the learned VII – Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. Plaintiffs in the Suit are the sons and daughter of one Late Sayeedunnisa. They filed Suit in O.S.No.33 of 2008 for partition against the defendants. The defendants No.1 to 3 are the son and daughters of one Late Ahmed Shariff. The defendants No.4 to 6 are the sons and daughter of one Waheda Begum D/o. Ahmed Shariff. The defendants No.9 to 13 are the children of Late Azizullah Shariff S/o. Late Jahangir Shariff. The defendants No.14 to 17 are the children of Late Rahmathullah Shariff S/o. Jahangir Shariff and defendants No.18 to 23 are the legal heirs of defendant No.1 and are impleaded as per the Orders in I.A.No.322 of 2010 dated 23.12.2010.

3. Plaintiffs in the Suit mainly contended that they are the legal heirs of Sayeedunnisa Begum and she died in the year 1999 and are entitled for partition of the suit schedule property. They further stated that the mother of Sayeedunnisa Begum i.e, Hussaini Begum also died in the year 1987 and Sayeedunnisa Begum is entitled for share of her mother and thus plaintiffs are entitled for the said shares of Sayeedunnisa.

4. Cross Obj.SR.No.7003 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiffs against the Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.33 of 2018, in which they contended that the trial Court wrongly held that land in Sy.Nos.398, 399, 400, 401, 413 and 414 are recorded in the names of third parties who are no way concerned with the family of the plaintiffs. They further contended that defendants have not pleaded in their written statement in respect of above said survey numbers did not belong to Mohd.Shareef.

5. Defendants in the suit contended that Mohd.Shareef and Hussaini Begum were died issueless. The said Sayeedunnisa is not their daughter. In fact, she is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef and she is not entitled for any partition and thus plaintiffs are also not entitled for any share in the properties, but the trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence decreed the Suit in favour of plaintiffs and held that they are entitled for partition and separate possession of half share and 1/8th share of the suit schedule property and accordingly passed a preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the defendant No.7 in the suit filed preferred the present appeal.

6. The defendant No.7/appellant mainly contended that plaintiffs are not the family members of Mohd. Shareef and the suit schedule properties are his Matruka properties. He also stated that Sayeedunnisa Begum is the daughter of Ahmed Shareef, who is one of the brothers of Mohd. Shareef and he filed Exs.B1, B2 & B3 to prove the said fact, but the trial Court ignored the crucial evidence. He also stated that Mohd. Shareef and Hussaini Begum died issueless. The Suit for partition was filed in the year 2008, Mohd. Shareef died in the year 1958, Hussaini Begum died in the year 1987 and the Sayeedunnisa Begum died in the year 1992. He also stated that there was no mutation of entries and the Suit itself was filed nearly after 50 years and the cause of action arise when the death of Mohd. Shareef known to the plaintiffs, but they kept quiet for five decades after the death of Mohd. Shareef, as he died issueless the suit schedule property was devolved on the two brothers of Mohd.Shareef i.e, Jahangir Shareef and Ahmed Shareef. The Sayeedunnisa Begum is none other than the daughter of Ahmed Shareef, who is niece of Mohd. Shareef. The trial Court wrongly considered Exs.A15, A16 & A17, in which the Mohd. Shareef was shown as the father of Sayeedunnisa Begum, but her mother’s name was not revealed in the said documents. The age and parentage of Mohd. Shareef was also not mentioned in the said documents and no competent witness to spoke about the documents was examine