COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.06.2007 passed in O.S.No.184 of 2000 by the learned Principal District Judge, at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Sri P. Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ranga Rao Nellutla, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

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

4. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree, and as the parties in both the appeals have submitted common arguments, this Court intends to dispose of both the appeals jointly by way of a common judgment.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for a preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule properties into three equal and equitable shares by metes and bounds, according to their good and bad qualities, and for allotment of one such share to plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 jointly and one share each to defendant Nos.1 and 2, along with other consequential reliefs in respect of the suit schedule properties i.e., the lands bearing Sy.Nos.35/2: Ac.0.2 gts., 36/2: Ac.0.11gts., 38/2: Ac.0.37 gts., 40/3: Ac.0.04 gts., 37: Ac.1.10 gts., 39: Ac.0.30 gts. and Sy.No.48: Ac.1.14 gts., in all total Ac.5.07 gts., situated at Hyderaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are the sons, plaintiff No.4 is the wife, and plaintiff No.5 is the daughter of late Penta Reddy, who died in the year 1985. Defendant Nos.1 and 2, namely Papi Reddy and Pratap Reddy, are the brothers of late Penta Reddy. All of them are the sons of late N. Shiva Reddy, who was the Kartha of the joint Hindu family and who died more than 20 years prior to filing of the suit.

7. It is further contended that the suit schedule lands are ancestral properties originally possessed by late Shiva Reddy. Upon his death, the said ancestral properties devolved upon late Penta Reddy and defendant Nos.1 and 2, each being entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule lands. After the death of late Penta Reddy in the year 1985, his share devolved upon the plaintiffs, being his sons, wife, and daughter.

8. Subsequent to the death of Penta Reddy, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 were jointly enjoying the suit schedule properties. It is further stated that one of the brothers of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and plaintiff No.5, namely Narasimha Reddy, was murdered, in which defendant No.2 was convicted, along with others involved in the Sessions Case, and a criminal appeal arising therefrom is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Owing to the said incident, the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants became strained. It is also contended that several civil suits are pending between the parties in respect of residential house bearing No.3-27 and a common well situated in Survey No.37/3, and that the said litigation has been continuing for nearly 15 years.

9. The plaintiffs contended that while enjoying their 1/3rd share, they were also taking care of the remaining 2/3rd share belonging to defendant Nos.1 and 2, as the defendants had left the village. In the revenue records, the names of the plaintiffs are shown as exclusive possessors and owners. It is further contended that no partition had been effected so far in respect of the suit schedule properties. Even in the revenue records, no sub-divisions were made, no bifurcation was effected, and no separate pattadar passbooks or title deeds were issued. According to the plaintiffs, all the sharers cultivated the lands as per convenience and enjoyed the properties approximately, but there was no partition by metes and bounds.

10. It is further alleged that the defendants, with an intention to grab the valuable roadside lands, and with