THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.No.271 of 1997 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The appellant/plaintiff filed this regular appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Siddipet, Medak District in O.S.No.57 of 1987, whereunder and whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition of ‘A’ schedule lands and houses, ‘B’ schedule lands, which are in possession of defendant Nos.4 to 9, ‘C’ schedule movable properties and ‘D’ schedule animals and brass utensils into two equal shares by metes and bounds and for other reliefs, was partly decreed for partition of the remaining properties into three equal shares and allotting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiff, defendant No.10, and defendant Nos.2 and 3 together and appointing a Commissioner for dividing the remaining suit schedule properties into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff, defendant No.10, and defendant Nos.2 and 3 together. 2. This case presents a sample scenario of the tormenting plight of an average litigant in reaping the fruits of litigation due to the delay tactics adopted in keeping the litigation pending and creating hurdles to put a quietus to the issue. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 4. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed the present appeal and obtained an order of injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff and defendant No.15 entered into compromise and they filed C.M.P.No.25012 of 2002 seeking permission to withdraw the appeal as per the terms and conditions in Faisalnama dated 21.10.2002. The said application was allowed and the appeal was disposed of in terms of compromise by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 05.02.2003, which reads as under: “During the pendency of the appeal, the parties seemed to have agreed to share the properties and settle the matter amicable outside the Court. As per their understating, it seems that the properties shown in Part-A fell to the share of the appellant and the properties shown in Part-B fell to the share of the respondents 2, 3, 10 and 15. Since both the counsel agreed for this proposal, the appeal is disposed of observing that the properties shown in Part-A shall be allotted to the appellant and the properties shown in Part-B shall be allotted to the Respondents 2,3, 10 and 15.” On coming to know about the disposal of the appeal, respondents 2, 3 and 10 (defendant Nos.2, 3 and 10) filed C.M.P.No.21952 of 2003 to recall the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2003 and restore the appeal for adjudication on merits. This Court, by order dated 05.03.2004, held that respondent Nos.1 and 13 played fraud and got the appeal disposed of basing on the alleged faisalnama and accordingly recalled the order dated 05.02.2003 passed in the appeal and also C.M.P.No.25012 of 2002 and restored the appeal to file for adjudication on merits. After such recall, the appeal was dismissed on 13.11.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Review A.S.M.P.No.256 of 2010 on 16.02.2010. He also carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.17534-17535/2010 and the same were dismissed as withdrawn on 06.08.2010. In the said Special Leave Petitions, two I.As i.e., I.A.Nos.1-2/2011 were filed and the same were also dismissed on 04.03.2011 by the Supreme Court making it clear that if the review petition was pending on the date when the order dated 06.08.2010 dismissing the SLP was passed, then the withdrawal of the SLP shall not come in the way of the petitioner pursuing the review petition. Later, the review petition was allowed on 16.06.2011 by another Division Bench of this Court since one of the Judge, who dismissed the appeal on merits, retired by that date. On allowing the review petition, the appeal was restored to file and now posted before us for final hearing. 5. The facts, in nutshell, which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are as under: The plaintiff is the son and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of defendant Nos.1 and 10, whereas, defendant Nos.4 to 9 are strangers. Defendant Nos.11 to 15 were added as per the orders in I.A.No.346 of 1991, dated 03.02.1992. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant executed Ex.B.44-Will in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and died on 13.10.1994. Defendant No.16 was impleaded as the legal heir of the first defendant, as per the order dated 09.03.1995 in I.A.No.1 of 1995. Consequent to the death of defendant No.8, defendant Nos.17 to 23 were brought on record as his legal representatives. Defendant Nos.24 to 26 were impleaded vide order dated 30.07.1996 passed in I.A.No.125 of 1996. 6. The plaintiff instituted the above suit on 15.12.1987 against defendants 1 to 9 stating that he is the only son of defendant Nos.1 and 10. The agricultural properties mentioned in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules are jointly owned and possessed by him and his father (defendant No.1). ‘B’ schedule properties are in occupation of defendant Nos.4 to 9. The movable properties other than the agricultural lands mentioned in ‘C’ schedule are jointly owned and possessed by him and his father. The properties mentioned in ‘D’ schedule i.e., animals and brass utencils are also jointly owned and possessed by him and his father. His father executed a nominal gift deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the land in Survey Nos.53, 55/1, 55/2, 55/6, 964/1, 964/2, 68, 67/1 and 67/2 respectively and defendant Nos.2 and 3 got filed suits for injunction against him (plaintiff) in O.S.Nos.199 of 1987 and 299 of 1987 respectively, in which he filed written statements. His father also inducted defendant Nos.4 to 9 in possession of ‘B’ schedule lands with a view to cause loss to him, and therefore, their possession in the said lands is illegal and unauthroised and they are liable to be evicted. When he questioned about the disposal of the lands in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the induction of defendant Nos.4 to 9 over the ‘B’ schedule lands, his father became wild and did not explain the reason for such disposal of the lands. Therefore, he has no option except to file the above suit for partition of the properties by metes and bounds. 7. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement on 16.12.1988 admitting that he is the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and husband of defendant No.10. While denying the averments made in para No.4 of the plaint that the suit schedule ‘B’ properties are joint family properties, he stated that he is the exclusive owner and possessor of the same. He also stated that defendant No.8 is the owner of the land in Survey No.91 admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas, which was transferred by him (defendant No.1) as an exclusive owner and possessor. While denying that plaint schedule ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ and ‘D’ properties are jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and him, he asserted that the plaintiff is not entitled to ½ share or any part in the said properties. He admitted that he transferred some of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as a rightful owner by way of gift deeds and also admitted the filing of O.S.Nos.199 and 299 of 1987 by defendant Nos.2 and 3 respectively. He denied the description of survey numbers and the extents mentioned by the plaintiff in respect of the gift deeds executed by him in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. While denying that he inducted defendant Nos.4 to 9 in possession of ‘B’ schedule properties, he asserted that he has transferred the land in Survey No.91 in an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas of ‘B’ schedule properties. In reply to para No.11 of the plaint, he stated that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Further, in the said written statement, defendant No.1 specifically pleaded that out of the suit schedule properties, he has transferred the land in an extent of Acs.3.20 guntas in Survey No.93 and Acs.3.34 guntas in Survey No.81/4 by way of registered gift deed in favour of B.Sudhakar Reddy, who is the husband of defendant No.3; that he has transferred the land admeasuring 283 square yards and 209 square yards in Survey No.75 and 367 square yards in Survey No.78, as a General Power of Attorney Holder, in favour of the said B.Sudhakar Reddy; that he has transferred an extent of Acs.5.37 guntas of land in Survey Nos.67/1 and 67/2 in favour of defendant No.3 by way of registered gift deed; that he has transferred an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas in Survey No.53/ , Acs.5.20 guntas in Survey No.68/1, Acs.2.17 guntas in Survey No.64/1, Acs.2.30 guntas in Survey No.55/1 and Ac.0.04 guntas in Survey No.100 in favour of defendant No.2, by way of gift deed and that he has also transferred a portion of house bearing No.1-1-127/1 and house bearing No.1-1-127/2 situated at Siddipet in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 respectively by way of registered gift deeds. He also stated that he gave the land in an extent of Ac.0.17 guntas in Survey No.242/ and Ac.0.27 guntas in Survey No.247/ to some other persons. He further stated that he purchased an extent of Acs.2.04 guntas in Survey No.199, Acs.1.25 guntas in Survey No.200, Acs.1.31 guntas in Survey No.201 and Acs.1.31 guntas in Survey No.203 in the name of the plaintiff when he was minor and aged about 12 years. 9. Defendant No.2 filed written statement on 30.06.1989 stating that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the lands admeasuring Acs.12.07 guntas in Survey Nos.33, 68/1, 64/1, 55/1 and 110 corresponding to parts of lands in item Nos.60, 59, 8, 4 and 16 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties ever since 1983; that the said lands have been gifted to her by her father-defendant No.1 by way of “pasupu kumkuma” at the time of her marriage under registered gift deed; that when the plaintiff tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said lands, she filed O.S.No.299 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsiff, Siddipet for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction, which was in force and that the lands in her occupation and enjoyment are the exclusive and self acquired properties of her father and hence, gifting of the said lands in her favour is valid, binding and enforceable against the plaintiff. 1 0 . On filing the above written statements, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.321 of 1990 to implead his mother as defendant No.10 and the same was allowed on 27.03.1991. Thereafter, the amended plaint was presented with the same averments on 05.06.1991. 11. Later, defendant No.1 filed additional written statement on 22.04.1992, whereas defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed additional written statement on 27.03.1995. 12. In the written statement filed by defendant No.3 on 30.06.1989 it is stated that she is in possession of Acs.9.00 of land in Survey Nos.67/1, 67/2, 50A, 50/C, 50/B, 50/E, 50/H and 50/I corresponding to the parts of land in item Nos.10, 11, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties; that the said properties were gifted to her by her father under registered gift deed towards “pasupu kumkuma” at the time of her marriage and that when the plaintiff tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over the said lands, she field a suit against him in O.S.No.199 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsiff, Siddipet for perpetual injunction and obtained temporary injunction. 13. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed a separate written statement on 16.08.1989 denying that ‘A’ schedule properties are owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and that Acs.1.16 guntas in Survey No.91/A, Ac.0.30 guntas in Survey No.91/1, Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey No.242 and Acs.1.09 guntas in Survey No.247 are in lawful possession of the respective purchasers. While denying that defendant No.1 has inducted defendant Nos.4 to 9 in possession of ‘B’ schedule properties recently with a view to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff, it is stated that since last two decades, the plaintiff’s family was not in possession of the suit lands in Survey Nos.91/3A, 91/1, 242 and 247. It is specifically pleaded that defendant No.1 parted with the suit land in an extent of Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey No.242 and Ac.1.09 guntas in Survey No.247 of Narsapur Village and the Well in Survey No.254 in favour of Harijans, by way of exchange long back; that the said fact was also recorded in a compromise filed in a civil litigation between the said Harijans and defendant No.1; that though Survey Nos.242 and 247 nominally continued in the names of defendant No.1, Yaparla Chilakamma and Yaparla Sarvaiah, in the village records, the name of defendant No.1 alone is showed in the owner and possessor column prior to the said exchange; that a decade after the exchange, the said Harijans sold the said extents of land i.e., Ac.0.11 in Survey No.242 and Ac.1.09 guntas in Survey No.247 to one Sri Jangoni Venkataiah, who is the brother of defendant No.5 under a simple registered sale deed dated 10.08.1981 for a consideration of Rs.6,600/- and ever since, the said purchaser is in possession and enjoyment of the said land and he has become absolute owner and possessor of the said land, as per the revenue records; that defendant No.6 – Managing Director, Janani Par Boiled Rice and Oil Mill purchased an extent of Ac.1.16 guntas of land in Survey No.91/3A under registered sale deed dated 30.01.1984 from one Kamuni Agaiah, who purchased the same from defendant No.1 long back; that similarly M/s.Vijayalaxmi and company, Siddipet represented by its Managing Director purchased the land in an extent of Ac.0.31 guntas in Survey No.91/1 of Narsapur under a registered document dated 30.01.1984 from said Kamuni Agaiah, who purchased the said land from one Beeraiah, who purchased the same from defendant No.1, under registered document dated 09.05.1981 and that the plaintiff being out of possession of the suit schedule properties is not entitled to value the suit under Section 34 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 and he ought to have paid the Court fee on 3/4th market value of the suit properties for the relief claimed by him. 14. Defendant No.8 filed a separate written statement on 03.08.1992 claiming that he is the bona fide purchaser of the land in Survey No.91/3B admeasuring Acs.1.10 guntas under registered sale deed dated 11.06.1985 from defendant No.1, who was a kartha of Hindu joint family, and since then he is in possession of the said land; that defendant No.1 sold the said land for his family necessities; that after the purchase of the said land, he got mutated his name in the land record and since the date of his purchase, his name is coming as owner, pattedar and possessor; that the plaintiff filed I.A.No.421 of 1991 and obtained injunction order against him and defendant No.15 is restraining them from constructing any bricks in the suit land and that he filed counter in the said application and the said application is still pending. 15. On impleading defendant No.10, she filed a written statement stating that her husband (defendant No.1) was the owner of ‘A’ schedule properties corresponding to items 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 27 to 30, which are his self acquired properties; that the rest of the properties shown in plaint ‘A’ schedule are ancestral properties; that they had four sons and three daughters viz., Bal Reddy, Malla Reddy, Narsimha Reddy (plaintiff), Hanmanth Reddy, Sathavva, Rajavva and Lakshmi respectively; that out of them, Bal Reddy and Malla Reddy died intestate and unmarried in 1952 and 1954 respectively and their interest in the joint family properties devolved survivorship and that Hanmanth Reddy also died intestate and unmarried in 1975 surviving her as his nearest heir and his interest in the joint family properties devolved on her under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 16. In the said written statement, defendant No.10 reiterated the gift deeds executed by her husband in respect of his self acquired properties in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties and also the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.15, who is the husband of defendant No.3. She also stated that in the rest of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties, the plaintiff, the first defendant and herself have 1/3rd share each. 17. Defendant No.10 further stated that defendant No.1 performed the marriage of the plaintiff with one Ramadevi about twenty five years ago; that later he contacted second marriage with one Lakshmi alias Saroja about 15 years ago, and thereafter, the plaintiff divided in status and had been living separately and hence he is nothing to do with the joint family; that the joint family properties were not partitioned by metes and bounds; that the plaintiff cultivated some of the joint family lands tentatively; that at the time the plaintiff divided in status, the movable properties and cattle were also divided and he took his share; that he has no share in plaint ‘C’ schedule properties and that ‘D’ schedule cattle were not in existence. 18. Defendant No.10 further stated that when the plaintiff tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties, which were gifted to defendant Nos.2 and 3 by their father, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed O.S.Nos.199 and 299 of 1987 respectively before the District Munsiff, Siddipet, to protect their possession; that the plaintiff has no right over the said properties and has no tenable defence in those suits; that defendant Nos.4 to 9 are the purchasers of ‘B’ schedule properties for adequate consideration and the said transactions are fully valid and binding on the plaintiff; that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/3rd share in the ancestral properties of plaint ‘A’ schedule only and that she is always ready and willing to divide the ancestral properties into three equal shares and to give one such share to the plaintiff. 19. Defendant Nos.11 to 14 filed a written statement stating that they purchased a piece of land admeasuring 251 square yards in Survey No.1175 situated at Siddipet, from defendant No.1 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-, under a registered sale deed dated 29.05.1991 and since then they are in possession of the said land. They further stated that the said land is the self-acquired land of defendant No.1. 20. Defendant No.15 filed a written statement denying that the agricultural properties are jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as described in plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules. He stated that except the ancestral land in an extent of Acs.6.00, some of the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.2 and some are self acquired properties of defendant Nos.3, 10 and 15 and that defendant No.1 acquired the properties by doing brick business, cattle business etc. He also stated that defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are in possession of the gifted properties, filed O.S.Nos.199 and 299 of 1987 respectively against the plaintiff and the same are pending before the District Munsif, Siddipet and that defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule land admeasuring Acs.7.14 guntas situated at Narsapur Village of Siddipet Mandal to him for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- in 1986 and inducted him into possession of the same since then. He further stated that defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in his favour for the above said land under document No.3837/88, dated 05.11.1988; that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.0.37 guntas and Acs.1.21 guntas totalling Acs.2.18 guntas in Survey Nos.64/1 and 64/2 situated at Narsapur Village to him on 06.10.1986 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- under an agreement of sale on Rs.7/- stamp paper and he was inducted into possession of the said land from the date of agreement of sale; that later defendant No.1 executed the registered sale deed in his favour on 29.05.1991 and his name was also included in the revenue records; that he purchased 300 square yards of open site, which is shown at Serial No.54 of plaint ‘A’ schedule, in Survey No.1156 situated in the limits of Lingareddypally Grampanchayat, Hamlet of Siddipet, from one Fahim Sultana, W/o.Mohd. Ghouse Moiuddin for a consideration of Rs.8,400/- under registered sale deed dated 18.01.1989 vide document No.185 of 1989 and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same; that he also purchased the plots mentioned at Serial Nos.51, 52 and 53 in the suit ‘A’ schedule properties from Lingaiah, Mohd. Ghouse Moiddin, Rachha Srinivas and Mohd.Shamsuddin and by virtue of the decrees in O.S.No.21 of 1988 and another suit, he is the owner of the said properties and that subsequently, he sold the said plots to third parties under registered sale deeds and the said purchasers are in possession of the same. Therefore, the said purchasers are necessary and proper parties to the suit and hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. 21. Defendant No.16 filed a written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff and denying the allegations made by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and prayed to allot 1/5th share of defendant No.1 in the suit schedule properties to her. 22. Defendant Nos.24 to 26 filed a common written statement denying that they purchased the suit schedule lands in Survey Nos.64/1 and 64/2 admeasuring Ac.0.37 guntas and Acs.0.03 guntas respectively situated at Narsapur Village from defendant No.15 under registered sale deed dated 07.03.1996. It is stated that they have obtained the said document from defendant No.15 for the purpose of security of certain amount; that after payment of the amount, they relinquished their rights under the registered relinquishment deed dated 04.07.1996 vide document No.2555/96 and that they have no right or interest over the land admeasuring Ac.0.37 guntas and Ac.0.03 guntas in Survey Nos.64/1 and 64/2 respectively. 23. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues and additional issue were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the suit schedule properties shown in ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ ‘D’ schedule are owned and possessed by the plaintiff and D.1? 2. Whether the D.1 exclusively owned and possessed ‘B’ schedule properties? 3. Whether Defendant Nos.4 to 9 are in illegal possession of ‘B’ schedule properties? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the relief claimed? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit properties, as prayed for? 7. To what relief? Additional Issue: Whether defendant No.16 is entitled for one-fifth share in the suit schedule properties? 24. On the above issues, the parties went into trial. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1, defendant No.10 was examined as D.W.2, defendant No.8 was examined as D.W.3, defendant No.15 was examined as D.W.4, defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.7 and two more witnesses were examined as D.Ws.5 and 6 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.44. 25. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, by the impugned judgement, answered issue No.2 against the plaintiff. On issue No.3, it was held that defendant Nos.4 to 9 were the bona fide purchasers and hence, their possession cannot be termed as illegal, and accordingly, answered issued No.3. On issue No.1, it was held that there was no documentary evidence to prove that any item of ‘A’ schedule properties was