JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the defendants challenging the decree and Judgment dated 20.10.2000 in O.S.No.02 of 2000 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty (for short, ‘trial court’).

2. Initially, the suit is filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, as O.S.No.26 of 1987. Subsequently, as per the orders of District Judge Anantapur dated 17.12.1999, the suit is transferred to Senior Civil Judge's Court, Gooty and numbered O.S.No.02 of 2000.

3. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial court.

4. Before noticing the pleadings, it is convenient to refer to the relationship of the parties. Admittedly, the Late H.M.Subhanjirao was the common ancestor of the parties. He had five sons, namely Papa Rao (S.1) through his first wife and other sons, namely Narasoji Rao (S.2), Swami Rao (S.3), Malkoji Rao (S.4) and Keloji Rao (S.5) through his second wife. The plaintiffs are the sons of Papa Rao (S.1). The defendants No.1 and 2 are the sons of Narasoji Rao (S.2); defendants No.3 to 5 are the sons of Swami Rao (S.3); defendants No.6 and 7 are the sons of Malkoji Rao (S.4). Keloji Rao is shown as defendant No.8 in the suit, his L.R.s are brought on record as defendants No.9 to 12 during the pendency of the suit.

5. During the pendency of the Appeal, some of the respondents died, and their L.R.s were brought on record. Having gone through the record, this Court views that the relationship of the plaintiffs and defendants, as mentioned in the plaint and Appeal, is not in dispute.

6. The appellants/respondents have filed separate applications in this Appeal in I.A.No.11 of 2022 and I.A.No.1 of 2023 under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C., to receive the documents enclosed in their respective petitions. This Court heard those applications along with the Appeal and dismissed the said applications by passing separate orders today. Thus, the reasons stated in the orders passed in I.As., need not be restated in this Judgment.

7. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

(a) One Late, H.M. Subhanji Rao, was the common ancestor of the parties. The plaint schedule properties are the plaintiff's and defendant's joint family properties. They are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs have got 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants set up a plea of partition dated 08.05.1950 during the lifetime of the plaintiffs' father. The document is a nominal one and is not in- tended to act upon. There was no actual division of the proper-

ties under the said partition deed. Even after the execution of the partition deed, the parties continued to live jointly as mem- bers of a joint Hindu family, enjoying all the family properties together. The partition deed was brought into existence to shield the properties from the losses as the plaintiffs' father was doing business then.

(b) The conduct of the parties shows that both parties are living jointly as members of the joint family and the brothers were liv- ing in separate houses prior to 1974 for the sake of conveni- ence, and the income from the scheduled properties was shared by all the branches of the plaintiffs and defendants as per their respective shares.

(c) Defendants 1 to 8 proclaimed that the plaintiffs have no share in the suit schedule properties. There was an exchange of notic- es; consequently, the defendants denied the plaintiffs' share based on the alleged partition deed dated 08.05.1950. In 1974, during the lifetime of Narasoji Rao, there was a notice got is- sued by Malkoji Rao through his Advocate dated 05.02.1974 for the partition of the scheduled properties. The Revenue authori- ties also recognized the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit schedule properties. Since the defendants are not amenable to any settlement, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for partition, claiming a

1/5th share.

8. (