JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C.”) is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 05.08.2014, in A.S.N.54 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional District Judge at L.B.Nagar, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 23.12.2010, passed in O.S.No.68 of 2003 by the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants. Perused the material placed on record. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court.

3. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

4. Briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule land i.e. agricultural land bearing Sy.N.415/e admeasuring Ac.0.13 guntas, Sy.N.416/e, admeasuring Ac.0.08 guntas, Sy.No.418/e admeasuring Ac.0.13 guntas, Sy.N.419/ Ac.0.18 guntas, Sy.No.420/e admeasuring Ac.0.08 guntas, Sy.No.421/e admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas, Sy.No.422/e admeasuring Ac.0.13 guntas and Sy.No.423/e admeasuring Ac.0.13 gutas situated at Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as the “suit lands”). The plaintiff is the daughter and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 is the purchaser of the suit schedule property.

5. The suit lands are ancestral properties and the plaintiff herein and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to 1/4th share each and they are cultivating the suit lands jointly on approximate basis without affecting regular partition with metes and bounds. The marriage of the plaintiff was held on 03.12.1993. The plaintiff demanded for partition in the suit schedule lands. The defendants initially agreed for partition, but subsequently postponed on one or the other pretext. On 25.05.2003, the plaintiff demanded defendant Nos.1 to 3 to divide the suit lands in four equal shares and allot one such share to her. But, defendant Nos.1 to 3 refused for partition. As such, the plaintiff filed for partition and separate possession of the suit lands.

6. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the mother of defendant No.1 is also having share in the suit lands and by then, she was alive, but, the plaintiff has not added her as party to the suit. Defendant No.1 being father and Kartha of the family borrowed money from the relatives and friends and performed the marriage of the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant No.2 met with accident and to meet medical expenses and treatment, he borrowed amounts from his well wishers. In order to clear the said loans, defendant No.1 was constrained to alienate the suit lands to defendant No.4 for valid sale consideration and executed registered sale deed vide document bearing No.3159/2002, dated 01.11.2002 and delivered possession of the same.

7. It is also stated that the suit is not maintainable, as the mother of defendant No.1 is not added as party. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 were well known about the alienation of the suit lands to defendant No.4, who is none other than the relative of parties to the suit. As such, the suit is not maintainable for partition and prayed to dismiss the suit.

8. Defendant No.4 filed written statement contending that he purchased the suit lands in the name of his minor son through registered sale deed vide document bearing No.3159/2002, dated 01.11.2002, and the mother of defendant No.1 also affixed her signature/thumb impression as attesting witness. Pursuant to the said sale deed, defendant No.4 was put in possession of the suit lands and since then, he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff was well aware of the said alienation. Defendant No.1 being