JUDGMENT:

This second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code is filed by defendant No.1 in the suit. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the suit. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit.

2. In both the Courts below, the appellant herein failed in his defence and therefore raising certain substantial questions of law filed this appeal. The suit is one related to partition of certain immovable properties. On 23.08.2013 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the son who divided from family is entitled to claim a share in the property of the father on his death, if there were son or sons living with him at the time of his death.

2. When a Coparcener went out of the joint family on account of his voluntary act whether he is entitled to claim a share of the joint family property of a deceased coparcener.

3. Whether the gift deeds executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant can be ignored without cancelling in accordance with law.

4. Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 are entitled to claim a share in property of the deceased father and mother in-pursuance of the provisions of the Act 39 of 2005.

5. Whether the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence or not.

The facts leading to this appeal are to be considered.

There was Sri Ghanta Pitchayya and his wife Smt Ghanta Rattamma and they had four children. Two of them are sons and two of them are daughters. Sri Ghanta Nageswara Rao is one of the sons and he filed O.S.No.67 of 2006 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, seeking for partition of properties and for past and future profits. In the said suit his siblings are the defendants. Contest was raised only by first defendant. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not choose to contest. After due trial, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit for partition and a preliminary decree was drawn up. The relief concerning past and future profits were not debated, discussed and was not decided. No relief was granted concerning past and future profits. However, the winning plaintiff felt satisfied and did not prefer any further appeal.

3. Thereafter, first defendant filed A.S.No.56 of 2010 before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Plaintiff, in the suit was the respondent and after due hearing, considering the merits of the matter, by the Judgment dated 19.06.2013, the learned First Appellate Court found that the findings and the reasons given by the trial Court were found in accordance with evidence on record and the conclusions were drawn up in accordance with law and finding no merit in the appeal, the first appeal was dismissed. It is against that Judgment, first defendant has preferred this second appeal seeking to set aside the Judgments of the Courts below.

4. To the plaint, schedule of the properties is appended. It consists of 8A9 schedule and 8B9 schedule. A schedule consists of two items. Item No.1 is Ac.1-66 cents of wet land in R.S.No.512/2. Item No.2 is wet land in an extent of Ac.2-22 cents in R.S.No.516/2. Both these items situate in Chitturpu Village of Krishna District. The total extent of these two items is shown as Ac.3-88 cents of agricultural land. 8B9 Schedule is a house site in an extent of Ac.0-15 cents in R.S.No.504/3 situated in Vakkalagadda Village of Krishna District. It is about these properties the siblings have been fighting for.

5. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that, suit A schedule properties were owned and possessed by their mother Smt Ghanta Rattamma. She died intestate. Therefore, on her death on 02-04-1999 these properties devolved upon her four children as her husband who is the father of the parties to the suit also predeceased her. It is in those circumstances, plaintiff sought for partition of plaint A schedule properties into four shares out of which one share should be given to him and one share to each of his siblings/defenda