1. Unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.408 of 1988 has filed this appeal. Plaintiff, who is the younger brother of the defendant, filed the above suit for partition O.S.No.408 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, alleging as follows:

(a) that the father of the parties i.e. Nagabhushanam died on 22.05.1972 and the mother of the parties later died on 02.02.1985. Originally the suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of A and B schedule properties on the ground that they belong to joint family. Later, the suit schedule was amended by including C and D schedule properties also. The suit was, primarily, filed on the basis of the declaration by the defendant before the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Authorities that the plaint schedule properties belong to the joint family, but the defendant had given the name of one K. Venkateswara Rao, as his brother instead of that of plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, alleges that the said Venkateswara Rao has nothing to do with the joint family and though the defendant admitted that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties, he intended to exclude the plaintiff and therefore, he filed the present suit.

(b) While A schedule property is vacant land admeasuring 2374.52 sq. meters in Sy.No.102/1 situated at Nagole Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; B schedule property is another vacant land admeasuring 2023.43 sq. meters in Sy.No.101/1 situated at Nagole Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; C schedule property is another extent of land admeasuring 2420 sq. yards in Sy.No.101 situated at Nagole Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and D schedule land property is another extent of land admeasuring 2820 sq. yards in Sy.No.101 situated at Nagole Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(c) The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations that there is any joint family in existence. It is stated that the plaintiff and the defendant were both employees and working in and around Hyderabad and hardly ever stayed at their native village Padagadalavaru, Guntur District. It is also stated that the plaintiff and the defendant owned an extent of Ac.13.22 cents of agricultural land in their native village. A and B schedule properties are claimed by the defendant as his own as having been purchased out of his savings and income from the lands gifted to his wife at the time of marriage for a consideration of Rs.5,953.60 ps. in the years 1965 and 1967. Just like the defendant, the plaintiff also purchased C schedule property in his own name in 1967-68. The defendant states that the plaintiff is fully aware that while A and B schedule properties are individual properties of defendant, C schedule property is the individual property of the plaintiff and there is no joint family property, except the agricultural land in the village, which alone is treated as joint family property; A, B and C schedule properties are not joint family properties.

(d) The defendant asserts that he has not used a pie also from the agricultural income for purchasing A and B schedule properties. It is further alleged that the father of the parties purchased D schedule property but later after the death of the father, the parties had partitioned the properties under deed of partition dated 10.03.1975 and the said partition did not include any of the plaint schedule properties, as they are never treated as joint family properties. The defendant, further, explains that his cousin brother K. Venkateswara Rao was living jointly with the defendant when the Urban Land Ceiling Act (for short ‘the Act’) came into force and it is for that reason that in the declaration filed before the ULC authorities, the defendant included his name. In any case, the competent authority under the Act rejected the defendant’s contention that A and B schedule properties are joint family properties and held that th