JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the decree and judg- ment dated 07.07.1992 in O.S.No.99 of 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram (for short, ‘trial court’).

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief averments, of the plaint, are as under:

(a) The plaintiff is the son of defendants 1 and 2. Another son named Veeraswami, who passed away before the Hindu Succession Act, left behind his wife as his sole heir. She relinquished her claim in the joint family properties and received cash. The defendants 1 and 2 have four daughters who are married and received suitable marriage gifts. Defendants 3 to 6 are tenants of Items 10 and 11, paying a monthly rent of Rs.100, which the 1st defendant collects.

(b) The 1st defendant is from Arthamuru village near Mandapeta.

He and his brothers partitioned the joint family properties, with the 1st defendant receiving landed property and a house. He earns a living by cultivating his own lands and leased lands, as well as preparing and selling sugar cane pans for making jaggery. Veeraswami, the son of the 1st defendant, used to assist in cultivation and the preparation of sugarcane pans. The plaintiff has been assisting the 1st defendant in agriculture and the business after reaching the age of discretion. The 1st defendant has purchased lands in various villages.

(c) The plaintiff got married in 1967, and his wife received land, cash, and jewels as gifts from her parents. About two years ago, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant decided to sell the lands in different villages and acquire lands in Mandapeta. The plaintiff's wife disposed of her lands and converted the jewels into cash. With the said amount some lands were purchased in the name of plaintiff and his wife. The family lands were sold, and the amounts were used to acquire lands in the name of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has been cultivating the plaint schedule lands on behalf of the joint family. Items 10 and 11 were constructed in a vacant site purchased in the year 1948 with joint family funds.

(d) All the plaint schedule properties are treated as joint family properties by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Until recently, the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 lived amicably. However, misunderstandings arose between the plaintiff's wife and the

2nd defendant, leading to the plaintiff and his wife starting a separate mess in items 10 and 11.

(e) The plaintiff started a separate mess, and the daughters of defendants 1 and 2 visited and influenced their parents against the plaintiff. The daughters received valuable movable properties from their parents. The plaintiff noticed that the daughters were trying to obtain documents and conveyances from the 1st defendant. When questioned, the 1st defendant claimed to have executed a settlement deed conveying items 7 to 9 to the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant intends to convey all the plaint schedule items to his daughters.

(f) The 1st defendant cannot deal with the plaint schedule properties as he wishes since they are joint family properties. The plaintiff sent a legal notice on 09.10.1982 to the 1st defendant, calling for the partition of the joint family properties. The 1st defendant received the notice but did not respond. The plaintiff claims a half share in the plaint schedule properties. The settlement deed executed in favour of the 2nd defendant for items 7 to 9 is invalid and there are no family debts to be discharged. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and delivers one such share to him.

4. (a) The 1st defendant filed the written statement denying most of the contentions made in the plaint, contending that he has two other brothers, Manganna and Sathiraju, apart from the plaintiff. They had previously partitioned their joint family properties through a regi