The plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting his claim for partition beyond a ratified share in one property, with the court affirming prior partition and dismissing other claims.

The Court made the following:

The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 25-9-1998 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, in O.S.No.29 of 1983. The learned trial Judge tried both the suits O.S.Nos.29 of 1983 and 27 of 1988 together and a common judgment is pronounced in both the suits. Both the suits are filed for the relief of partition. O.S.No.29 of 1983 filed by the appellant/ plaintiff was decreed in part.

2. Though O.S.No.27 of 1988 is decreed in part, no appeal or no cross- objections are filed by any of the parties against the decree in O.S.No.27 of 1988. Furthermore, the plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 1983 is the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.27 of 1988. The 3^rd defendant in O.S.No.29 of 1983 filed the suit O.S.No.27 of 1988. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.29 of 1983 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Addanki.

3. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.29 of 1983 for partition and separate possession of his 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties and put him in possession of his 1/5^th share in the plaint A-schedule and payments of his 1/5^th share or its value in respect of plaint B-schedule properties for rendition of accounts and for costs.

(b) Murarisetti Kotaiah had five sons, by name late Venkata Subbaiah (plaintiff’s father), Rama Kotaiah (1^st defendant), Gurunadham (2^nd defendant), Venkata Rathnam (3^rd defendant) and plaintiff in O.S.No.27 of 1988 Ranganadham @ Ranganayakulu (4^th defendant). The joint family headed and managed by late Venkata Subbaiah (plaintiff’s father and brother of defendants 1 to 4) who acquired some properties for and on behalf of the joint family. The defendants used to meet needs of family of the plaintiff from the income derived on the joint family business.

(c) The 3^rd defendant (plaintiff in O.S.No.27 of 1988) issued a legal notice dated 06-9-1982 for partition of properties and for separate possession stating them to be joint while himself is claiming to be separate business. The plaintiff felt that it is no longer congenial and convenient to continue any interest joint and therefore demanded for partition.

4. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1^st defendant, which was adopted by defendants 5 to 7, are as follows:

(a) It is contended that the plaintiff’s father and defendants 1 to 4 had partitioned their properties in the year 1952 and they are separately living and enjoying their estate in their own right. Subsequently, the five brothers got prepared a separate partition list showing details of the properties that have fallen to the shares and all the five brothers signed in these partition lists. Since the time of said partition, the brothers are pursuing their own business.

(b) It is further contended that subsequent to partition, defendants 1 and 3 purchased Item No.1 of plaint A-schedule land to an extent of Ac.0-08 cents. Subsequently, the 3^rd defendant purchased another land to an extent of Ac.0-05½ cents and later sold Ac.0-02½ cents and 160 square links in two plots under a stamped agreement of sale dated 01-12-1980 to the 1^st defendant and put him in possession of the same. Thus, in Survey No.1096/A1, the 1^st defendant is having Ac.0-06½ cents on the east and to its west, the 3^rd defendant is having the remaining extent. Item No.2 fell to the share of defendants 2 to 4 in the family partition. Item Nos.3 and 4 are separate properties of 2^nd defendant which are acq