JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.79 of 1989 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1998. For the ease of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

2. The facts, according to the plaintiffs in the suit, are as follows:

a) Late Sri Jutta Ganga Raju, who was the owner of plaint 7A8 schedule property, among other properties, passed away on 28.12.1951, intestate, leaving behind his widow late Smt. Jutta Venkatamma, two sons, viz., late Sri Somaraju and late Sri Subbarao, and four daughters, who are defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit. The properties of late Sri Ganga Raju devolved on his two sons. Later his widow late Smt. Venkatamma has also executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of her sons and as such the two sons became the absolute owners of 7A8 schedule property. The property described in 7A8 schedule consists of two contiguous items of property, viz.., land admeasuring Ac.0.69 cents in RS.No.129/2, and land admeasuring Ac.1.16 cents in RS.No.129/3 of Kadakatla Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. Both the sons of late Sri Gangaraju were desirous of constructing houses in the 7A8 schedule property and sought advise whether such a house would be Vastu compliant. They were advised that the shape of 7A8 schedule property was not appropriate for construction and needed to be corrected. On such advise both the sons of late Sri Gangaraju had executed a nominal settlement deed registered on 31.07.1963 in favour of defendants 1 to 4 for the purpose of overcoming Vastu dosha. The land, which was the subject matter of the said nominal settlement deed was Ac.0.69 cents in RS.No.129/2 and Ac.0.14 cents in Rs.No.129/3 aggregating to Ac.0.83 cents.

b) The two sons of late Sri Gangaraju having executed such a document did not inform to defendants 1 and 4 about the said transaction and had retained the deed of settlement in their possession and the possession of the property was also not delivered to defendants 1 and 4. Further defendants 1 and 4 never accepted the said deed of gift or asserted any right or claimed possession of the property. A claim of adverse possession was also raised, by the plaintiffs, but does not appear to have been pressed in the course of trial. As 7B8 schedule property forms part of 7A8 schedule property and was never separated, no reconveyance was obtained and sought from defendants 1 and 4. However, the 4th defendant executed an agreement (kararnama) dated 09.12.1975 acknowledging title and possession of two sons of late Sri Gangaraju.

c) Due to certain misunderstandings between the widow and sons of late Sri Gangaraju on one side and the daughters of Sri Gangaraju on the other, two suits came to be filed. Initially, the 2nd defendant filed O.S.No.891 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Tadepalligudem claiming partition of all the properties belonging to late Sri Gangaraju. This included the land, which is described in 7B8 schedule to the suit. Similarly, the 3rd defendant also filed O.S.No.121 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Tadepalligudem for a declaration and possession that she had inherited Ac.1.00 of land out of 7A8 schedule property under a oral gift. The claim in this suit included 7B8 schedule property also. However both the suits were dismissed and the defendants did not take any further steps in these two cases.

d) At that stage, the sons of late Sri Gangaraju passed away; Sri Jutta Subbarao died intestate on 02.01.1985 leaving behind his wife, three sons and one daughter, who are shown as plaintiffs 1 to 5. Jutta Somaraju died intestate on 18.02.1987 leaving behind his wife, three sons and four daughters, who are arrayed as plaintiffs 6 to 13. Late Sri Jutta Venkatamma, the widow of late Sri Gangaraju, also died on 27.03.1985 after having executed a registered Will dated 28.08.1982 bequeathing her properties to h