JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel representing the appellants. 2. The Second Appeal is filed by the plaint in O.S.No.538 of 1977 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Kakinada. 3. The suit, was filed by the present appellant Nimmakayala Ganga Rao and another Nimmakayala Venkateswarlu for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the remainder interest in items 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule subject to the first defendants right to enjoy the said property for the duration of his life time towards maintenance and for recovery of item-1 of the plaint A and B schedule property. 4. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance having settled the issues recorded the evidence of P.W-1, D.Ws 1 and 2, marked Exs. A-1 to A-24 and Exs. B-1 to B-11 and ultimately dismissed the suit. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the first plaintiff carried the matter by way of appeal A.S. No. 70 of 1984 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, and the learned Judge allowed the appeal in part by modifying the decree and judgment in O.S.No.538 of 1977 decreeting the suit in part with proportionate costs, declaring that the first plaintiff is entitled to the remainder interest in items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule subject to the first defendants right to enjoy the said property during his life time and rest of the suit claim was dismissed without costs. 6. Aggrieved by that portion of negativing the claim, the first plaintiff preferred the present Second Appeal. 7. The first defendant died during the pendency of the second appeal and respondents 5 to 9 were brought on record as the legal representatives by order in C.M.P. No. 836 of 2002. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out to the relevant findings recorded in relation to issue No.3 by the court of first instance on the question of limitation and would contend that the same had attained finality since as against the said finding as such no appeal had been preferred, though the first plaintiff preferred the appeal being aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit as such. Hence, the counsel would contend that negativing the relief in relation to B-schedule by the appellate Court cannot be sustained. 9. Though several substantial questions of law had been framed. Hence, the counsel would contend that negativing the relief in relation to B-schedule by the appellate Court cannot be sustained. 9. Though several substantial questions of law had been framed. the only substantial question of law, which had been argued in elaboration by the learned counsel representing the appellant is as hereunder. Whether negativing the relief partly by the appellate Court on the ground of limitation especially in the light of the finding recorded by the Court of first instance on Issue No.3 be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case? 10. As already referred to supra, the present appellant as first plaintiff along with Nimmakayala Venkateswarlu filed suit O.S.No.538 of 1977 on the file of III Additional District Munsif, Kakinada, praying for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the remainder interest in items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule subject to the first defendant’s right to enjoy the said property for the duration of his life time towards maintenance and for recovery of possession of item-1 of plaint-A schedule and B-schedule property. It is needless to say that the first defendant in the suit Nimmakayala Venkataratnam, first respondent in the Second Appeal, is no more and the legal representatives were brought on record. It was pleaded in the plaint as hereunder. 1st plaintiff is the son of 1st defendant through his first wife and second plaintiff is the son of 1st defendant through his second wife and 1st defendant is the son of late Nimmakayala Bangaramma and that on 5-10-1943 the 1st defendant and his father partitioned their family properties and executed a registered partition deed as per terms of which he got B-schedule properties for his share. 1st defendant also got properties from his maternal and paternal grand mothers. 1st defendant got 1/3rd share each and the share of 1st defendant in partition deed through his father on 5-10-1943. 1st defendant got exclusive rights in properties got through his maternal and paternal grand mothers. 1st defendant also got properties from his maternal and paternal grand mothers. 1st defendant got 1/3rd share each and the share of 1st defendant in partition deed through his father on 5-10-1943. 1st defendant got exclusive rights in properties got through his maternal and paternal grand mothers. 1st defendant executed a registered settlement deed dated 20-3-1950 in favour of his mother late Bangaramma and the plaintiffs providing (i) that 1st defendant should enjoy only the property described in C-schedule of the said settlement deed with a life interest without any rights of alienation and that the remainder interest in the said properties should vest in the plaintiffs; (ii) that the 1st defendants mother should act as guardian of the plaintiffs who were then minors during their minority (iii) that all the properties of 1st defendant mentioned in the settlement deed as per A and B schedule of the settlement deed shall be enjoyed by his mother Bangaramma with a life estate and the remainder interest shall vest in the plaintiffs and the sons whom 1st defendant may beget thereafter who shall enter into possession and enjoy the same as full and absolute owners after the death of Bangaramma. 1st defendant had no other male or female children except the plaintiffs. 1st defendant’s second wife also died and he did not marry again. The paternal grand father of the 1 plaintiffs executed a registered will dated 19-4-1983 while he was in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing his properties to his wife paternal grand-mother of the plaintiffs for life with remainder to the plaintiffs. 1st defendant got some irritation against the plaintiffs and it is a fit temper executed a document styled settlement deed cancellation deed" stating vaguely that the original settlement deed was executed on account of certain complications “Vyayaharipu Chikkulu” which was since cleared and, therefore, the settlement deed is cancelled. 1st defendant has no right to cancel the settlement deed unilaterally and the reasons given for the cancellation are also vague and false. Having executed the settlement deed, 1st defendant can, if at all, cancel the same by filing a suit for cancellation of the settlement deed and by obtaining a decree for cancellation. The cancellation deed could never be and was never given effect to and the settlement deed continued to be operative. Having executed the settlement deed, 1st defendant can, if at all, cancel the same by filing a suit for cancellation of the settlement deed and by obtaining a decree for cancellation. The cancellation deed could never be and was never given effect to and the settlement deed continued to be operative. In fact, when the plaintiffs partitioned their properties to be taken by them as remainder-men as per the settlement deed executed a registered partition deed dated 21-1-1972 and the 1st defendant actively helped the plaintiffs in the matter of partition and attested the partition deed and figured as an identifying witness before the registering officer. The 1st defendant became addicted to all kinds of vices and was wasting even properties in which he has a restricted right and 1st defendants father mentioning these facts as a ground for not bequeathing any of his properties to him provided in his will and that the plaintiff should give the 1st defendant, twelve bags of paddy annually for his maintenance from the date when the plaintiffs get possession of the lands bequeathed to them during the life time of the 1st defendant. In January, 1972 the plaintiffs gave Ac. 1.55 cents of Andrangi described as items 2 and 3 in the" plaint, A-schedule to 1st defendant to be enjoyed by him during his life time towards maintenance and put him in possession by way of an oral agreement and no registered document was executed evidencing this arrangement though when another dispute arose and that matter was adjusted and an agreement was executed, this was also mentioned. The 1st defendant sold away Penumalla and Andrangi lands described as item-1 of A-schedule and B-schedule and for his wasteful habits and vices. The right of 1st defendant was not enlarged beyond a life interest by any valid document or transaction in the properties in which he has only a life estate. After the death of 1st defendants mother, disputes arose regarding her jewels and 1st defendant gave a police report against the plaintiffs. The right of 1st defendant was not enlarged beyond a life interest by any valid document or transaction in the properties in which he has only a life estate. After the death of 1st defendants mother, disputes arose regarding her jewels and 1st defendant gave a police report against the plaintiffs. The disputes were settled and an agreement dated 6-8-1976 was executed, wherein it was specifically affirmed that the plaintiffs gave items 2 and 3 of plaint-A schedule to the 1st defendant to be enjoyed during his life in lieu of the maintenance provided by the first defendants father in his will and the plaintiffs need not give 12 bags of paddy as provided in the said will. 2nd defendant took advantage of the situation and by pampering to 1st defendants vices wants to secure a sale of his items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule as if the 1st defendant owns them absolutely. A notice was got issued to defendants 1 and 2 warning that if the 1st defendant sells the said land to the 2nd defendant, 1st defendant would forfeit his life interest. The notice was received by 1st defendant on 5-10-1976 and 2nd defendant received it on 6-10-1976. He has no tenable answer to the notice and so did not send any reply for more than 21/2 months and then got a reply notice with false allegations in spite of the fact that as late as 6-8-1976, he subscribed his signature to an agreement of settlement of disputes stating that according to an oral agreement. The 1st defendant is allowed to enjoy the items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule with full rights and the plaintiffs are enjoying Ac. 4.29 cents of 1st defendant’s share taken by him in the partition with his father that 1st defendant borrowed Rs. 1,800/- on 5-6-1973 from the 2nd defendant and that he executed a simple mortgage deed dated 5-6-1973 and that 1st defendant leased the land on an annual rent of 15 bags of paddy in 1972 and that the 2nd defendant is a tenant. Most curiously the reply goes to state further that the 1st defendant has a third wife and son by name Apparao and that the said Apparao has 1/4th share in the partition with his father and demanding a partition and allotment of a 1/4th share for the said Apparao. Most curiously the reply goes to state further that the 1st defendant has a third wife and son by name Apparao and that the said Apparao has 1/4th share in the partition with his father and demanding a partition and allotment of a 1/4th share for the said Apparao. This is a pure invention intended to blackmail the plaintiffs. 1st defendant has no third wife and no son by name Apparao. Plaintiffs reserve their right to take criminal action for false personation against the defendants, if they persist in the story set up in the reply notice. 2nd defendant died after the suit and so his legal representatives are added as defendants 6 and 7 as per orders dated 10-6-1980 in LA.No.12/80. 4th defendant died after the suit and so his legal representatives were added as defendants 8 to 10 as per orders dated 6-3-1982 in I.A. No. 50/82. After the suit, the 3rd defendant wanted the plaintiffs to withdraw their claim against the property purchased by her that is Ac. 0-17 cents in S.No.56/4 which is item (1) (a) as per the amended plaint A schedule. Hence the suit. 11. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, it was pleaded as hereunder. Several allegations were denied. It was also further pleaded that the relationship between the plaintiffs and this defendant is true and correct. This defendant has one daughter by name Seeta through his first wife. The said daughter was married to Talatam Veerraju of Penumalla. The first defendant begot two children through his third wife Ramayamma and they are Bangaramma, aged 21 years and Apparao aged about 18 years. The son Appara Rao is entitled to claim partition of joint family properties. The first defendant had executed the said settlement deed, which was never intended to be acted upon. As soon as ‘vyavaharapu chikkulu’ cleared, this defendant executed a document ‘settlement deed cancellation deed’ and he had every right to execute the same and the same is true, valid, legal and binding on the plaintiffs. The settlement deed stood cancelled on account of cancellation deed. On the other hand, she executed a Muchilika cancellation deed in favour of this defendant on 27 -3-1969 relinquishing all her rights in the properties corresponding to items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule. The settlement deed stood cancelled on account of cancellation deed. On the other hand, she executed a Muchilika cancellation deed in favour of this defendant on 27 -3-1969 relinquishing all her rights in the properties corresponding to items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule. It is true that this defendant attested the registered partition deed dated 21-1-1972 executed between the plaintiffs. He was given to understand by both the plaintiffs that the property covered by the said partition deed was exclusive of items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule. This defendant was obliged to lodge a complaint with the police, then on the intervention of respectable mediators, they approached Mandaleeka Satyanarayana. Advocate. Kakinada who suggested and worked out a compromise and the plaintiffs and this defendant accepted the compromise agreement drafted by the said Satyanarayana on 6-8-1976, wherein it was admitted and agreed upon by the plaintiffs that they had no right over S.No.126/6 and S.No.127/1, corresponding to items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule. In view of the said compromise agreement to which the plaintiffs are also parties, they are estopped from challenging this defendant weight in respect of items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule. This defendant in turn agreed to give up his right of maintenance provided to him under his fathers will. The plaintiffs are not justified in withholding this defendants maintenance claim without giving up their claim over the said land of Ac. 1.55 cents. as a result of the plaintiffs cruel conduct, this defendant along with his third wife and their children is virtually undergoing privations. This defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties. Under the agreement dated 6-8-1976 the plaintiffs gave up their alleged rights over items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule. This defendant borrowed Rs. 1,800/- from the second defendant who is his tenant and this defendant mortgaged about Ac.3-11 cents of his land to him as security for the said amount and the mortgage remains un-discharged. When the notice was issued by the plaintiffs to this defendant, he got issued a reply with correct facts. This defendant sold item-1 of the plaint-A schedule to the defendants 3 and 4 as per sale deeds dated 2-7-1975 and 11-1-1961 respectively and the schedule property to 5th defendants vendor Pilli Venkatamma under a registered sale deed dated 7-3-1955 for family necessity. This defendant sold item-1 of the plaint-A schedule to the defendants 3 and 4 as per sale deeds dated 2-7-1975 and 11-1-1961 respectively and the schedule property to 5th defendants vendor Pilli Venkatamma under a registered sale deed dated 7-3-1955 for family necessity. The said sale deeds are fully supported by consideration and were for an adequate and proper value. This defendant and late Bangaramma knew fully well about the sales and kept quiet all these years without demur. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the suit with costs. 12 The second defendant filed written statement pleading as hereunder. The first defendant through a registered partition with his late father Nimmakayala China Gangaraju in 1943 got for his share a total of Ac. 5.84 cents besides movable properties. Since then the first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, paying taxes due to the Government. The first defendant leased out his land of Ac. 1.55 cents situated in Andrangi village to this defendant in 1972 on annual rental of 15 bags of paddy and accordingly this defendant has been continuing as a tenant under the first defendant paying rent regularly without committing default. Besides that on 5-6-1973 this defendant lent Rs. 1,800/- to the first defendant on the security of a mortgage of Ac. 3-11 cents of land belonging to first defendant. The first defendant executed a simple mortgage bond in favour of this defendant for the said amount. The debt still remains unpaid and the mortgage bond is subsisting. This defendant believes that the present suit is an act of collusion between the plaintiffs and the first defendant who is no other than their father to defeat this defendants tenancy rights and if possible to avoid the mortgage debt due to him. The plaintiffs got issued a registered notice with false and untenable allegations and this defendant got issued a reply notice with true and correct facts. There is no cause of action to file the suit against this defendant and the alleged cause of action is not valid and property. Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 13. The defendants 3 to 5 filed written statement pleading as hereunder. The relationship between the parties set out in para-4 of the plaint is true and correct. Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 13. The defendants 3 to 5 filed written statement pleading as hereunder. The relationship between the parties set out in para-4 of the plaint is true and correct. The first defendant through a registered partition with his father and his sons i.e. plaintiffs herein got his share of Ac. 5.84 cents of land besides movable properties towards his share. Since then he has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right paying taxes due to the Government. While so, the first defendant for his necessity viz. to discharge the agricultural loan due to the Government and for discharging sundry debts sold away to third defendant Ac. 0-17 cents of dry land out of Ac. 0-35 cents of land situate in Andhrangi shown as item-1 of plaint-A schedule for a consideration of Rs. 150/- under a registered sale deed no. 1575/55 dated 2-7-1955. The third defendant was put in possession of said land on 2-7-1955 itself and since then he has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same paying taxes due to the Government. The third defendant invested a lot of money to improve it to render it fit for cultivation. The first defendant for his necessity viz. to discharge the pro-note debt due by him to Vasamsetti Suryanarayana of Andhrangi and to discharge the sundry debts incurred for family maintenance sold away to fifth defendant on 11-1-1961 Ac. 0-81 cents of his dry land out of a total extent of Ac. 0-35 cents shown as item-1 of plaint-A schedule for a consideration of Rs. 150/- under registered sale deed No. 84/61 dated 11-1-1961. The said land belonged to the first defendant and was in his possession and enjoyment till date of sale. The 4th defendant was put in possession of the land on the date of sale deed itself and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the land was dry and was badly in need of repair, the 4th defendant invested huge sums to improve it and made it what it is today. The 4th defendant was put in possession of the land on the date of sale deed itself and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the land was dry and was badly in need of repair, the 4th defendant invested huge sums to improve it and made it what it is today. The first defendant was the absolute owner of the plaint-B schedule land, he having obtained it by way of a gift deed through his paternal grand mother Nimmakayala Bhagamma, wife of Venkanna since then the first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, in his own right paying taxes. The first defendant for his necessity namely family maintenance and for discharge of a debt due under a mortgage bond, sold the same to one Pilli Venkanna, wife of Pullayya of Andrangi for a consideration of Rs. 800/- under a registered sale deed No. 416/55, dated 7-3-1055, and she was put in possession of the same and now she is the absolute owner thereof. The 5th defendant purchased the said land from Pilli Subbanna, son of Venkanna and his undivided son Satyanarayana for Rs. 5,287.50 ps. under registered sale deed No. 103/77 dated 28-1-1977. The land was delivered possession of 5th defendant on 28-1-1977 and since then he has been in possession of the same. These defendants submit that the plaintiffs and their grand mother late Bangaramma are well aware of the said sales in their favour. The suit is barred by limitation. The conduct of the plaintiffs is clear from the fact that they and late Bangaramma during her lifetime kept quiet all these years without challenging the allegations in favour of these defendants by the first defendant and that proves to the hilt that they acquiesced in the sales. As such, the plaintiffs have no manner of right to impugn the sale deeds and disturb the title or possession of these defendants. When the plaintiffs got issued a registered notice to these defendants they approached the plaintiffs and questioned them about the notice. the plaintiffs stated that the notices were issued to them as a result of the family bickerings between them and their father, the first defendant herein and that they would not harm or harass these defendants. The suit is collusive and speculative on the face of it. the plaintiffs stated that the notices were issued to them as a result of the family bickerings between them and their father, the first defendant herein and that they would not harm or harass these defendants. The suit is collusive and speculative on the face of it. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 14. The 7th defendant filed written statement pleading as hereunder and the same was adopted by 6th defendant. These defendants are not aware of the fights of parties in the land. But the first defendant Nimmakayala Venkataratnam borrowed from Achanta Satteyya, husband of 6th defendant Rs. 1800/- on mortgaged items 2 and 3 of plaint-A schedule representing that she is the full owner thereof and suppressed the fact that there is dispute as to the said land. The first defendant leased out items 2 and 3 of the plaint -A schedule to late Satteyya and this defendant and got two leases separately executed by them and executed a single lease in their favour on 4-2-1971 and both tenants cultivated jointly till Satteyya died and thereafter this defendant is cultivating and rent is being paid regularly. But the first defendant is trying to play mischief by setting up a third party stranger as lessee and suitable action is being taken. 15. Before the court of first instance the following issues were settled. (1) Whether the settlement deed, dated 20-3-1950, is true, valid and binding on the defendants 2 to 5? (2) Whether the cancellation deed, dated 28-1-1951, is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (4) Whether the valuation and court fee paid are correct? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration prayed for? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of Item-1 of ‘A’ Schedule and ‘B’ schedule property? (7) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to question to 1st defendants right over the property in view of the muchilaka dated 27-3-1968 executed by late Bangaramma? (8) To what relief ? 16. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the 17 first defendant examined himself as D.W.1, and the purchaser, the fifth defendant, in the suit shown as second respondent in the second appeal was examined as D.W.2.Exs.A-1 to A-24 and Exs. B-1 to B-11 were marked. 17. (8) To what relief ? 16. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the 17 first defendant examined himself as D.W.1, and the purchaser, the fifth defendant, in the suit shown as second respondent in the second appeal was examined as D.W.2.Exs.A-1 to A-24 and Exs. B-1 to B-11 were marked. 17. The findings in detail had been recorded by the Court of first instance, while answering issue No.3 the court of first instance recorded as follows: The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that since Bangaramma died in 1968 a suit for recovery of possession can be filed even in 1980. The present suit was filed in 1977 and hence it is within time. The point of limitation was not argued on behalf of defendants. Hence, I hold this issue in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the suit is not barred by limitation and against the defendants. Being aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit though a positive finding had been recorded regarding the question of limitation, the first plaintiff preferred appeal A.S. No. 70 of 1984 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, kakinada, and the appellate Court at para-5 framed the following points for consideration in the appeal. (1) Whether the settlement deed dated 20-3-1950 is a family arrangement as contended by the appellant is true. if so, the first respondent defendant has no right to execute a cancellation deed dated 28-1-1951? (2) Whether the settlement deed dated 20-3-1950 is binding on the defendants? (3) Whether the appellant-first plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and for recovery of possession of B schedule property prayed for in the suit? 18. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the appellate Court recorded the findings in detail and ultimately allowed the appeal partly declaring that the first plaintiff is entitled to the remainder interest in items 2 and 3 of plaint A schedule subject to the first defendants right to enjoy the said property during his life time and the rest of the suit claim was dismissed no costs. 19. 19. EX.A-2 is the registered extract of settlement deed dated 20-3-1953 and the properties in EX.A-2 are shown in three schedules and plaint-A schedule properties are the properties which had fallen to the share of the first defendant in partition with his father, and plaint-B schedule properties are the properties which the first defendant got from his maternal and paternal grand mothers and they are his exclusive properties and the properties described in plaint-C schedule are part of the properties mentioned in B-Schedule. As far as plaint-A schedule properties are concerned, the plaintiffs, who were minors by that time, are entitled to 2/3rd share and the same had been specified in the settlement deed referred to supra. The first defendant, who executed the settlement deed, got only 1/3rd joint share in the plaint-A schedule properties and the recitals in the said deed would go to show that the first defendant executed a family settlement deed in favour of his sons, plaintiffs 1 and 2, who were minors at that time, showing his mother, Bangaramma, as guardian and directing the mother to maintain his minor sons with their 2/3rd share in the plaint-A schedule properties and enjoy 1/3rd share in the plaint-A schedule property and the properties in B-schedule excluding properties mentioned in C-schedule during her life time by giving remainder interest to the plaintiffs in all the properties mentioned in A, B, and C-schedules. Thus, from the recitals of the settlement deed, it is clear that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd undivided share in the plaint-A schedule properties of the settlement deed and the first defendant is entitled to only 1/3rd undivided share. However, as per the terms of the said settlement deed referred to supra, both plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules excluding ‘C’ schedule properties were given possession and late Bangaramma, mother of first defendant and guardian of plaintiffs with life interest and the remainder interest to the plaintiffs and first defendant retained only life interest in C-schedule properties which are part of B-schedule and the remainder interest was given to the plaintiffs. 20. The appellate Court taking the recitals into consideration came to the conclusion that it is a family settlement. Reliance was placed on Potti Lakshmi Perumallu v. Potti Krishnavenamma; M.N. Aryamurthi and another v. M.L. Subbaraya Setty (dead) by his L.Rs and others. 20. The appellate Court taking the recitals into consideration came to the conclusion that it is a family settlement. Reliance was placed on Potti Lakshmi Perumallu v. Potti Krishnavenamma; M.N. Aryamurthi and another v. M.L. Subbaraya Setty (dead) by his L.Rs and others. Reliance also was placed on certain decisions on the aspect of acceptability and binding nature of family arrangement on Shambhu Prasad Singh v. Most Phool Kumari and others; Maturi Pullaiah and another v. Maturi Narasimham and others; Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others; and Bapurao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh through Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Kamareddy. 21. The first defendant executed a family settlement deed dated 20-3-1950 relinquishing his right of alienation of the family properties and conveyed plaint-A and B schedule properties in the settlement deed with life interest in favour of his mother and remainder interest to the plaintiffs by retaining life interest in ‘C’ schedule properties by giving remainder interest to the plaintiffs. The stand taken by the first defendant that the plaintiffs agreed to give up their rights over items 2 and 3 of plaint-A schedule in the light of EX.A-5 had been specifically negatived and taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the appellate Court came to the conclusion t1hat the appellant as first plaintiff is entitled to a decree only to certain items declaring that the first plaintiff is entitled to the remainder interest in items 2 and 3 of the plaint-A schedule, no doubt, subject to the first defendants right to enjoy the said property during his life time, but had negatived the rest of the claims. 22. On the aspect of the claim of the first plaintiff to recover possession of plaint-B schedule as per the evidence available on record, plaint-B schedule property was originally sold by the first defendant under sale deed dated 7-3-1955, Ex. B-1 0, to one Pilli Venkamma and later the same was purchased by the 5th defendant by virtue of a sale deed dated 28-1-1977 from the sons of Pilli Venkamma. Thus, these successive purchasers have been in possession and enjoyment of plaint-B schedule property since 7 -3-1955 onwards. This aspect is not in serious controversy. B-1 0, to one Pilli Venkamma and later the same was purchased by the 5th defendant by virtue of a sale deed dated 28-1-1977 from the sons of Pilli Venkamma. Thus, these successive purchasers have been in possession and enjoyment of plaint-B schedule property since 7 -3-1955 onwards. This aspect is not in serious controversy. It is no doubt true that under the settlement deed, dated 20-3-1950, the first defendant had conveyed life interest in plaint-B schedule property also in favour of the mother and remainder interest in favour of the plaintiffs. The mother of first defendant, 8mt. Bangaramma, died in December, 1968 and after the death of 8mt. Bangaramma, though the plaintiffs became exclusive owners for plaint-B schedule property also they had not chosen to claim the said property till the filing of the present suit. Though the plaintiffs got divided items 2 and 3 of plaint-A schedule, basing on the family settlement deed under a registered partition, they had not chosen to partition plaint-B schedule land. There is an admission made by P.W.1 that the first defendant delivered possession of the lands sold by him to defendants 3 and 4 and vendor of 5th defendant, and they have been cultivating the said lands personally. Later, the 5th defendant purchased the same in the year 1977 and since then the 5th defendant also has been personally cultivating the said lands. Thus, it is clear even from the evidence of P. W.1 that the plaintiffs, their guardian the mother of the first defendant late Bangaramma though aware of the sale deeds and the purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of these lands by successive purchasers referred to supra, the same was not questioned for sufficiently a long time till the filing of the present suit. In the light of the same, the appellate Court after recording the reasons in detail at para-8, allowed the appeal partly at para-9. 23. It is no doubt true that the defendants had not preferred any appeal as against the finding recorded by the Court of first instance on the question of limitation. It is pertinent to note that the suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit the first plaintiff in the suit preferred the appeal. Inasmuch as the suit itself was dismissed, the contesting defendants had not chosen to file any appeal. It is pertinent to note that the suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit the first plaintiff in the suit preferred the appeal. Inasmuch as the suit itself was dismissed, the contesting defendants had not chosen to file any appeal. When an appeal is preferred, the appellate Court is empowered to go into all the questions and record proper findings. 24. Hence, in the light of the findings recorded in detail by the appellate Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds raised by the learned counsel for: the appellant that inasmuch as no appeal I was preferred as against the finding relating to the limitation recorded by the Court of first instance, the appellant is bound to succeed relating to those items also, cannot be sustained. 25. Hence, viewed from any angle, the Second Appeal being devoid of merit the same shall stand dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.