JUDGMENT:

st Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. The deceased 1 defendant is his elder brother. After his death, the defendants 3 to 9 were impleaded as his legal representatives. After the th

5 defendant died, his legal representatives were added as the defendants 10 and 11. Alienees of the subject matter were also added as the respondents in the appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit originally against the defendants 1 and 2 who are his brother and mother, for partition of the plaint schedule properties on the ground that they are joint family properties. Late Ponna Ranga Reddy was father of the plaintiff st nd and the 1 defendant and husband of the 2 defendant. Ranga Reddy died in the year 1943. According to the plaintiff, Ranga Reddy left the plaint schedule properties except lands in S.Nos.130/A and 770 and the said survey numbers were purchased subsequent to his death with income from other st suit lands, during management of the properties by the 1 st defendant as karta of the joint family. The 1 defendant pleaded that joint family properties left by Ranga Reddy were partitioned in the year 1948 along with debts and moveable properties; and again in the year 1960, the plaintiff demanded for partition and there was partition of the properties again in the presence of J.Lakshma Reddy, J.Kista Reddy, Kangi Ranga Reddy as per settlement deed on 30.06.1960, in which st st both the plaintiff and the 1 defendant signed. The 1 defendant further pleaded that land in S.No.130 was st purchased by father-in-law of the 1 defendant and so the said property in S.No.130 was not considered in the partition st of the year 1960. It is further pleaded by the 1 defendant that he filed suit in O.S.No.57 of 1960 on the file of District Judge, Sanga Reddy in which the plaintiff herein as defendant filed written statement in that suit admitting Arbitrator’s giving judgment on 30.06.1960, in pursuance of which partition took place; and the plaintiff withdrew joint possession from st S.No.770, by which the 1 defendant became absolute owner thereto.

2) Originally, the trial Court, after full trial, dismissed the suit by judgment dated 14.07.1991, against which the plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No.1311 of 1981 in this High Court. This Court confirmed decree of the trial Court partly and allowed the appeal partly and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in relation to land in S.No.130. Aggrieved by st the same, legal representatives of the 1 defendant filed further appeal in L.P.A.No.273 of 1993 in this Court and Division Bench of this Court disposed of the letters patent appeal on 26.06.2001 confirming order of remand made by st Single Judge of this Court in the 1 appeal, on two issues namely 1) whether land in S.No.130 of Pothireddypally is joint st family property of the plaintiff and the 1 defendant, and 2) whether the suit in respect of land in S.No.130 is barred by limitation.

3) After remand, the trial Court after complying with order of remand of this Court, dismissed the suit, as against which the plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2005 in the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment confirmed decree of the trial Court holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the property in S.No.130 is joint family property, and therefore is not liable for partition as it is st exclusive property of the 1 defendant; and also finding that claim of the plaintiff in this regard is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed this second appeal in this Court.

4) The only surviving matter as on today in this litigation is divisibility of land in S.No.130 of Pothireddypally village st between the plaintiff and the 1 defendant. Exact description of the said land is found as item No.16 in the plaint schedule. The disputed land consists of Ac.8.30 guntas in S.No.130/Aa. It is a dry land (chelka) described as ‘Mutiyapu Sivaiah Kanda’. The question whether the said land in the above