JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.06.20201 in O.S.No.71 of 2017 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Nalgonda (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’), the defendant No.1, 3 and 4 preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the appellants to file the present appeal are that, the plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties against the defendant Nos.1 to 4. The averments of the plaint in brief are as under:

a) The marriage of the plaintiff was performed about 25 years ago i.e., on 19.03.1992 with one Pakkir Sudhakar Reddy as per Hindu customs and rites prevailing in Reddy Caste. No dowry was paid by the parents of the plaintiff at the time of marriage except promising to give her share in suit schedule 'A'

and 'B' properties. The plaintiff, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 constitute the members of undivided Joint Hindu Family governed by Mithakshara School of Hindu Law. The schedule property is ancestral property of Komatireddy Chandra Reddy, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1. After the death of Komatireddy Chandra Reddy, his son Komatireddy Linga Reddy, father of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1became the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. After the death of Komatireddy Linga Reddy i.e., on 14.01.2009 the plaintiff, Defendant No.1and 2 succeeded to the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and jointly cultivating the suit lands by knowing to one and all of Brahmanvellemla (Kothagudem) village of Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District. The Joint Hindu Family consisting of the plaintiff, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are having the following suit schedule properties in which the plaintiff is having 4/9th share, Defendant No.1is having 4/9th share and Defendant No.2 is having 1/9th share.

b) Item Nos.6 and 7 of Schedule ‘A’ land, Survey No.357, admeasuring Ac.4.16 guntas and Survey No.358, admeasuring Ac.6.04 guntas total extent of Ac.10.20 guntas in the name of Komatireddy Andamma W/o. Komatireddy Linga Reddy, who is Defendant No.2. In fact, the item nos.6 and 7 lands were purchased and owned by the father of the plaintiff, who is 'kartha' of the Joint Hindu Family, but to take loans and to obtain Government Benefits the item No.6 in Sy.No.357 admeasuring Ac.4.16 guntas and item no.7 in Sy. No 358 admeasuring Ac.6.04 guntas total extent of Ac.10.20.guntas were kept in the name of Defendant No.2 nominally but it is not either the self- acquired property or streedhana property of Defendant No.2, as such, the item nos.6 and 7 land in Survey Nos.357 and 358 admeasuring total extent of Ac. 10.20.guntas is in the joint family property of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 but not the self-acquired property of Defendant No.2.

c) The item no.1 of schedule 'A' property in Survey No.343, admeasuring Ac.4.00.guntas and item no.2 in Sy.No.360 admeasuring Ac.5.18.guntas item no.3 in Survey No.361 admeasuring Ac.3.29.guntas item no.4 in Survey No.359, admeasuring Ac.6.27.guntas and item no.5 in Survey No.268, admeasuring Ac.0.07.guntas total admeasuring Ac.20.01 guntas dry land situated at Brhamanavellemla (Kothagudem) village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda district was in the name of the father of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1, namely, Komatireddy Linga Reddy which came from his father Komatireddy Chandra Reddy, as such, it is Joint Hindu Family Property and after his death the above Ac.20.01 guntas fell to the share of the plaintiff, Defendant Nos.1and 2.

d) The plaintiff, defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, which are being recorded in the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the concerned revenue records. Defendant No.1 transferred item no