( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant aggrieved by the judgment and Decree made in O. S. No. 121/89 on the file of Subordinate Judge, karimnagar. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit praying for partition and separate possession of his half share in the plaint schedule property. The learned Judge on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties had settled the Issues, recorded the evidence of P. W. I to P. W. 3, D. W. I to D. W. 5, marked Exs. A-1 to A-8 and exs. B-1 to B-18 and ultimately decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. ( 2 ) CONTENTIONS of Sri C. Ramesh sagar: Sri Ramesh Sugar, the learned counsel representing the appellant/defendant made the following submissions. The learned counsel pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties and would contend that even on a just look at Issue No. 1 it could be taken that the learned Judge had not appreciated the pleadings properly and issue No. l was not settled in the light of the pleadings of the respective parties and in view of the same inasmuch as the matter was decided in the absence of proper framing of the Issues, prejudice is caused to the appellant/defendant and hence the matter may have to be remanded. The learned Counsel also while further making his submissions had commented that in the light of the material available on record there are certain other properties belonging to the family and all the properties are not shown before the Court and hence in the absence of all the properties, the relief of partition cannot be granted since it would amount to a suit praying for the relief based on only partial partition which is impermissible in law. The learned Counsel also commented that in the light of the endorsement made on Ex.-18 and also in the light of the order made by this Court in crp No. 1142/95 when the document as such was marked, non-consideration of the endorsement which would form part and parcel of the said document also is a serious infirmity to be taken into consideration. Even otherwise, the said endorsement can be looked into by virtue of which it can be taken that the plaintiff had left these properties or relinquished these properties in favour of the defendant, the present appellant. Even otherwise, the said endorsement can be looked into by virtue of which it can be taken that the plaintiff had left these properties or relinquished these properties in favour of the defendant, the present appellant. The learned Counsel also would comment that it may be that the relationship between the parties may be true, but had taken a specific stand that there was an exchange of properties and this property exclusively belongs to the appellant/defendant and in the light of the oral evidence adduced by him, the stand taken by the appellant/defendant should have been believed. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of p. W. I and also D. W. I and the evidence of other witnesses available on record. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions. ( 3 ) CONTENTIONS of Sri Mowa chandra Sekhar Rao: Sri Mowa chandrasekhar Rao, the learned Counsel representing Sri Bhaskar Reddy, Counsel on record on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would maintain that on a careful reading of the findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge, it is clear that the parties had understood the respective stands taken by them and had gone to trial and adduced the evidence and invited findings. Even if the framing of any issue, especially Issue No. 1, is not strictly in accordance with the pleadings, the same had not caused any prejudice whatsoever since both the parties are conscious of their respective stands. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the relationship between the parties that they are brothers is not in serious dispute. When the appellant/defendant had taken the stand of exchange and also had taken the stand of the availability of other properties, the burden is on him. Even otherwise, several of these factual details are absent in the pleading i. e. , written statement filed by him. It was pleaded that several other properties are available to the family. At any rate the Counsel would maintain that the appellant/defendant was unable to discharge the burden cast upon him and hence the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion. While commenting about the endorsement made on Ex. B-18, the learned counsel pointed out that even by the order in the Civil Revision Petition, this Court just permitted the appellant/defendant to mark the same. While commenting about the endorsement made on Ex. B-18, the learned counsel pointed out that even by the order in the Civil Revision Petition, this Court just permitted the appellant/defendant to mark the same. Even otherwise, there is no clear pleading nor proof in relation to the said endorsement. When that being so, by virtue of the said endorsement said to have been made on Ex. B-18, it cannot be said that the alleged relinquishment or the exchange had been established by the appellant/defendant. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the contradictory stands which had been deposed even by the witnesses examined on defence side and would contend that this would show that one brother is trying to postpone the litigation by requesting for an order of remand. This is definitely not a justifiable stand and there should be some reason for making an order of remand. At any rate, the party cannot take advantage of his own wrong of the non-marking of endorsement and cannot make it a ground again inviting an order of remand at the hands of this Court. This is totally impermissible and at any rate such order of remand cannot be made under any of the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure. The learned Counsel would contend that in the absence of any acceptable evidence relating to either exchange of the properties or relating to relinquishment or leaving these properties totally in favour of the other brother or relating to the existence of several other properties belonging to the family, necessarily the preliminary decree passed by the learned Judge may have to be confirmed, especially in the light of the stand taken by the appellant/defendant in the written statement. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Nagubai Ammal v. B. Snama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593 , Nedunuri kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, air 1963 SC 884 , Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 2987 and samdani Begum v. Dir Mohammed khan, 2004 (4) ALD 296 = AIR 2004 AP 272 . ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel on record and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Judge. ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel on record and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Judge. ( 5 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that an application was filed to implead certain parties in A. S. M. P. No. 254/2006 and this court by order dated 17-3-2006 had dismissed the said application. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as "plaintiff and "defendant" as arrayed in the original suit for the purpose of convenience. ( 6 ) IN the light of the rival contentions which had been advanced by both the counsel, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:1. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Judge and further granting a preliminary decree for partition by the learned Judge to be disturbed in anyway or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the non-framing of proper issue. Issue No. 1, had caused prejudice to the parties so as to make an order of remand? 3. Whether the non-marking of the endorsement on Ex. B-18 by the defendant would enure to his benefit in making a request for an order of remand? 4. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? ( 7 ) POINT Nos. 1 to 3: The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of his half share in the plaint schedule property. Before taking up further discussion, it may be appropriate to have a look at the relevant portion of the respective pleadings of the parties. The pleadings no doubt are short and not elaborate. It was pleaded in the plaint as hereunder: the plaintiff is the elder brother of the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant are joint owners, possessors and cultivators of the land measuring Acs. 3-00 gts. out of sy. No. 943 of Karimnagar Revenue village with equal rights having jointly purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing Registered Document No. 2201/1971 dated 4-8-1971. Since the date of the said purchase the plaintiff and the defendant are jointly cultivating and enjoying the suit land as joint owners and possessors thereof. The plaintiff is an old man aged about 60 years. Of late differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendant and therefore it is no more convenient for the plaintiff and the defendant to jointly enjoy the suit schedule land. The plaintiff is an old man aged about 60 years. Of late differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendant and therefore it is no more convenient for the plaintiff and the defendant to jointly enjoy the suit schedule land. As such the plaintiff requested the defendant for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule land but the defendant refused to do so finally on 6-8-1989 at Karimnagar. The defendant is also trying to alienate the suit schedule land to others with a view to deprive the rights of the plaintiff of his 1/2 share and with a view to create complications and multiplicity of the proceedings. The plaintiff is entitled for a decree directing partition and separate possession of his 1/2 share in the suit schedule land. ( 8 ) THE defendant filed a written statement in substance denying the allegations. The relationship between the parties is not in serious controversy. It was also further pleaded by the defendant as hereunder: in reply to Para 4 of the plaint regarding the plaintiffs joint ownership of land bearing s. No. 943 to the extent of Ac. 3-00 situate at Karimnagar and the joint purchase is true, but the remaining part of the para is false. The plaintiff had exchanged his portion of the land in the above suit property to the defendant prior to the year 1978. The defendants name also is recorded as owner from the year 1978 in revenue records and the revenue authorities also had issued ryot pass pusthakam to the defendant in the year 1978. The plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land since long time. Prior to 1978 and till today the defendant has also dug a well and installed electric pump and motor to the suit land and irrigated the suit land with the help of the well since 1978 onwards. The contents of Para 5 of the plaint had been denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff had already exchanged this land with the defendant, the suit land is exclusive land of the defendant prior to 1978. Therefore the question of partition does not arise. The plaintiff has no share in the suit land and hence the question of request for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share of the suit land does not arise. Therefore the question of partition does not arise. The plaintiff has no share in the suit land and hence the question of request for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share of the suit land does not arise. Hence the request made by the plaintiff on 6-8-1989 is purely concocted and fabricated for the purpose of the suit. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit property. The alleged cause of action on 6-8-1989 is purely imaginary, concocted and fabricated for the purpose of the suit. As the suit land is the exclusive property of the defendant the question of cause of action does not arise. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit land is not the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendant but it is the exclusive property of the defendant and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit. The plaintiff had already exchanged the suit property with the defendant prior to the year 1978. The plaintiff became greedy due to enhanced market value of the suit land and in order to harass the defendant the plaintiff had filed the false case against the defendant. ( 9 ) ON the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were settled:1. Whether the defendant has got 1/2 share in the suit land to him in exchange from the plaintiff as contended by the defendant prior to the year 1978 and became the absolute owner of the suit land? 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the Court fee paid is correct? 5. To what relief? ( 10 ) IT is no doubt true that on a careful reading of the respective pleadings of the parties, Issue No. l had not been properly worded. No doubt the learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in M. Ravi Naidu v. G. Jayasekhar Naidu, 2002 Suppl. (2) ALD 335, wherein it was no doubt held that framing of proper Issues and proper points for consideration would be essential. As can be seen from the evidence available on record, the evidence of P. W. I to P. W. 3, d. W. I to D. W. 5 and also the documentary evidence marked Exs. A-1 to A-8 and Exs. As can be seen from the evidence available on record, the evidence of P. W. I to P. W. 3, d. W. I to D. W. 5 and also the documentary evidence marked Exs. A-1 to A-8 and Exs. B-1 to B-18, both the parties were conscious of the respective stands taken by them, the plea of Exchange, the plea of leaving away the property in favour of the other brother and had let in evidence and on the strength of the evidence available on record, findings had been recorded. In fact, at Para 6 the learned Judge while answering Issue No. 1 observed:". . . . . . . . . . . . . Therefore, in the present suit, there are two primary things to be established by the defendant are that there are several properties belonging to the plaintiff and defendant and they were partitioned. The other thing that is to be established by the defendant is that after the partition the suit schedule land fell to the share of plaintiff was exchanged by the defendant by giving some of his share to the plaintiff and taking the suit land. These are the two primary facts to be established by the defendant to succeed in the case. In the light of this fact, now, i shall proceed with the contentions and evidence. "from this it is clear that though Issue no. 1 was not properly worded, both the parties had proceeded with the trial clearly knowing the respective stands taken by them. It is not as though the learned judge had not understood the contest between the parties and the crucial aspects of the controversy. The very observations referred to supra would make it clear that the matter was appreciated in proper perspective though Issue No. 1 is not happily worded. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, the learned judge recorded findings in detail and ultimately decreed the suit for partition. Before taking up the further discussion, it is pertinent to note that strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in b. Narayana v. B. Rajaiah, 1996 (2) ALT 861 , (in CRP No. 1142/95 dated 15-11-1995 ). It appears the question of admissibility of the endorsement made on Ex. Before taking up the further discussion, it is pertinent to note that strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in b. Narayana v. B. Rajaiah, 1996 (2) ALT 861 , (in CRP No. 1142/95 dated 15-11-1995 ). It appears the question of admissibility of the endorsement made on Ex. B-18 was the subject-matter of the aforesaid C. R. P. and no doubt the learned Judge observed that the question of admissibility or otherwise of the document not to be considered at the time of its production and the same can be decided at trial. It is no doubt true that in the light of the said order, the defendant should have taken steps to mark the said document in question in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid C. R. P. , but however the said opportunity was not availed for the reasons best known to him. Much comment was made by the learned Counsel representing the appellant/defendant on certain observations made by the learned judge at Para 15 whereunder the learned judge observed as hereunder:"now, coming to the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant, Ex. B-18 is the sale deed through which both plaintiff and defendant purchased the suit schedule land. As there was no dispute about this document, it is to be treated as admitted. Further, Ex. B-18 supports the claim of the plaintiff to the extent that the suit schedule property was the joint property of plaintiff and defendant. A translation copy of the Urdu document was filed in which an endorsement was also produced. Equally on the back of Ex. B-18, an endorsement was existing showing about the relinquishment and it is being impounded by the Mandal Revenue Officer. However, this being independent portion of ex. B-18, in view of the fact that the same was not marked as Exhibit, it cannot be considered by this Court in support of the claim made by the defendant regarding the exchange. "certain submissions were made on the ground that this endorsement also can be taken into consideration inasmuch as it forms part and parcel of the main document ex. B-18. "certain submissions were made on the ground that this endorsement also can be taken into consideration inasmuch as it forms part and parcel of the main document ex. B-18. The learned Counsel representing the appellant/defendant also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara krishtappa, AIR 1959 AP 380 (FB) and also the decision of the learned Judge of this Court in Moora Chinna Narasimhulu v. Gedda Kadirappa, 2002 (5) ALT 720 . There cannot be any dispute about the propositions laid down in the said decisions, but these decisions are distinguishable on facts for the reason that when the party was permitted to mark the endorsement on Ex. B-18 and the said party had not chosen to do so, the same cannot be commented again at the appellate stage that no proper opportunity was given to him and hence that can be a ground for making an order of remand. ( 12 ) COMING to the other oral and documentary evidence available on record though an attempt was made on the part of the Counsel for the appellant/defendant to show that certain other items are available to the family, no acceptable evidence as such is forthcoming before the Court. The relationship of the parties also may have to be taken into consideration and the specific stand taken by the defendant in relation to Exchange and failure on the part of the defendant to substantiate his stand also may have to be taken into consideration. P. W. I deposed about the details of the family and also deposed that in the year 1971 himself and his brother purchased land from one Muralidhar Rao jointly and obtained document jointly and the extent of the suit land is Acs. 3-00 and after the purchase they jointly cultivated the suit land. Since the time of execution of the original registered sale deed the same was with the defendant. P. W. I also deposed that he does not known reading and writing. The defendant knows reading and writing. The defendant is a literate person. This witness also deposed certain other factual details relating to the family. P. W. 1 further deposed that they purchased the land from Justice kumarayya jointly and the said land was jointly sold to one Gopal and they distributed the sale consideration in between them equally. The defendant knows reading and writing. The defendant is a literate person. This witness also deposed certain other factual details relating to the family. P. W. 1 further deposed that they purchased the land from Justice kumarayya jointly and the said land was jointly sold to one Gopal and they distributed the sale consideration in between them equally. This witness also specifically deposed that they had not partitioned the suit land or any other land at anytime and no Panchayat had taken place and there are no disputes with regard to the suit land and other lands. There is a well in the suit land. This witness also deposed about the certified copies of certain documents. Ex. A-1 is a certified copy of the registered sale deed, Ex. A-2 is the pass book, Ex. A-3 is the pahani for the year 1973-74, Ex. A-4 is a certified copy of pahani for the year 1974-75, Exs. A-5 to A-8 also are certified copies of the pahanies. This witness also deposed that a demand for partition was made and since the defendant was not inclined the suit was filed. This witness in cross-examination deposed that he received a notice that he had no land from his brother and hence he filed the suit. This witness also denied several suggestions put to him. He was cross-examined in detail relating to certain of the family affairs. P. W. 2, K. Gopal, deposed that he knows the plaintiff and the defendant from the childhood and he purchased the land from both the plaintiff and the defendant and these lands belonged to justice Kumarayya and he purchased the same about 16 or 17 years back and the land was in possession of both the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of his purchase. He got the sale transaction written and both parties signed on it and he gave money to both the plaintiff and the defendant. This witness deposed that he purchased Acs. 2-00 and he gave money to both the plaintiff and the defendant and when he purchased Ac. 1-00 he gave money to the plaintiff. He does not know the disputed land. When he purchased the land both plaintiff and the defendant were joint. He was cross-examined and certain suggestions put to him were denied by this witness. 2-00 and he gave money to both the plaintiff and the defendant and when he purchased Ac. 1-00 he gave money to the plaintiff. He does not know the disputed land. When he purchased the land both plaintiff and the defendant were joint. He was cross-examined and certain suggestions put to him were denied by this witness. P. W. 3 deposed that he knows the parties to the suit and all of them belong to one caste and they are related and he knows the suit land which was purchased from one Muralidhar Rao. The suit land was not partitioned. Both the plaintiff and the defendant purchased land of mamidlaguddam from one Justice and they sold the said land to P. W. 2. The plaintiff and the defendant had not partitioned their properties. About 15 years back he cultivated the suit land to help both the plaintiff and the defendant. This witness was cross-examined and suggestions put to this witness had been specifically denied. Specific stand was taken that the suggestion that there was already partition is not the correct stand. This is the evidence available on behalf of the plaintiff. ( 13 ) AS against this evidence, the evidence of D. W. I to D. W. 5 and Exs. B-1 to B-18, the documentary evidence, is available on record. D. W. 1 deposed that he is in possession of the entire suit land including the share of the plaintiff on the plaintiff relinquishing his right over half share in the suit survey number in his favour in Exchange of Sy. No. 937. The said transaction had taken place in 1978 between these parties. Since the date of relinquishment he has been in possession and cultivating the entire suit land. This witness also deposed that he dug a well in the suit land and he had installed an electric motor and this witness deposed about Ex. B-1, electricity card, Ex. B-2 another electricity consumer card, Ex. B-3 certified copies of pahanies, Exs. B-4, B-5 to B-10 certified copies of pahanies for different years and Ex. B-17 the ryot pass book issued by the Tahsildar, Karimnagar. This witness also deposed that the registered sale deed dated 17-8-1978 was given to him in the year 1976. The sale deed is Ex. B-18. B-2 another electricity consumer card, Ex. B-3 certified copies of pahanies, Exs. B-4, B-5 to B-10 certified copies of pahanies for different years and Ex. B-17 the ryot pass book issued by the Tahsildar, Karimnagar. This witness also deposed that the registered sale deed dated 17-8-1978 was given to him in the year 1976. The sale deed is Ex. B-18. Again he (the plaintiff) created some troubles in 1978 and the Patwari and other elders settled the dispute and made an endorsement in the year 1978 on the back of Ex. B-18. He also deposed that his elder brother said that he can give possession of the land to him. He was in possession of the land from 1976. They also partitioned the other properties in 1976. Since last 20 years ex. B-18 is with him. The plaintiff did not ask for return of Ex. B-18. The plaintiff never cultivated the suit lands. The plaintiff never demanded any share from the land. His name was entered in the revenue records and he had given certain particulars relating to the boundaries and the other details. This witness was cross-examined. No doubt he had denied the suggestion that just to grab the land and to deprive the plaintiff of having a share this witness is taking such a stand. D. W. 2 deposed that the parties are related to him and he knows the suit land and the defendant is in possession of the land from 1976 and he came to be in possession of the suit land since he had received the same in Exchange. The defendant gave mango garden. The arrangement was made in 1976 orally. They had partitioned all other properties. In the year 1978 the plaintiff gave his registered document to the defendant. The dispute was going on from 1976 and the Patwari settled the same in the year 1978. The partwari wrote on paper and he does not know which paper it was. He is an illiterate. The Patwari wrote on a registered paper. The plaintiff and this witness signed on it. First the plaintiff signed and afterwards the Patwari signed. The defendant was cultivating the land. The defendant dug a well and fixed a current motor. In cross-examination this witness deposed that both the plaintiff and the defendant are related to him. He is an illiterate. The Patwari wrote on a registered paper. The plaintiff and this witness signed on it. First the plaintiff signed and afterwards the Patwari signed. The defendant was cultivating the land. The defendant dug a well and fixed a current motor. In cross-examination this witness deposed that both the plaintiff and the defendant are related to him. This witness also deposed that the wife of Narayana is his menakodalu and he is in talking terms with the plaintiff. No doubt he had denied the suggestion that from the date of dispute he is not in talking terms with the plaintiff. This witness also deposed that the settlement took place at the house of Patwari and the settlement was made in the bazaar. On the request of the parties he went to the house of patwari and he cultivated the land by the side of the suit land by lease about 13 years back. This witness denied the suggestion that there was no partition at all between these parties. D. W. 3 deposed that he was the Patwari of Karimnagar from 1957 to 1983 and he used to enter in the revenue records who are in actual possession and he knows both plaintiff and the defendant and he was present when the suit land was purchased. In 1971 the suit land was purchased through a registered document. They purchased the land jointly. They have partitioned the properties in 1964 also and the plaintiff and the defendant got dispute and came to him in the year 1978. He is the scribe of the document. He wrote two documents and one was settlement. He also scribed the details on the original registered sale deed. He signed on the document and Rajaiah also signed on the document. This witness also deposed that defendant cultivated the land from 1973 to 1983 and he gave certificate in favour of the defendant for obtaining electricity service connection. In cross-examination this witness deposed that the plaintiff and the defendant had not come to him prior to 1978. One Rajamallu (D. W. 2) and others were present. The settlement. was at his house. He does not know whether the plaintiff has been doing milk business. This witness also denied the suggestions put to him. In cross-examination this witness deposed that the plaintiff and the defendant had not come to him prior to 1978. One Rajamallu (D. W. 2) and others were present. The settlement. was at his house. He does not know whether the plaintiff has been doing milk business. This witness also denied the suggestions put to him. The specific suggestion put to him relating to the fact that there was no such settlement at all had been denied by this witness. D. W. 4 deposed that he knows the suit lands and his lands are near the suit land and he is a Harijan. This witness deposed that the share of the plaintiff was exchanged to Mamindla gudem given by the defendant and the same was about 20 years back. This witness also deposed about two Panchayats which were held between the plaintiff and the defendant and his participation in the said Panchayats and the other details. In cross-examination this witness denied the other suggestions. D. W. 5 was examined for the purpose of establishing the fact that the well was dug by him. No doubt this witness deposed certain details of digging the well as requested by the defendant and the other details. This is the evidence available on record. ( 14 ) IT is no doubt true that the defendant was able to establish up to some extent that the revenue records stand in his name for a particular point of time and he examined the Patwari also. The oral evidence let in by the defendant apart from the entries made in the revenue records also had been taken into consideration and findings at length had been recorded by the learned Judge. Even if the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant to be taken into consideration the specific stand taken is that the Exchange of this property is in relation to the property at Mamindla gudem. It is pertinent to note that P. W. 2 who purchased that property clearly deposed about the payment of consideration to both the plaintiff and the defendant and narrated the other details in relation thereto and specific stand was taken about the family being joint at the relevant point of time too. It is pertinent to note that P. W. 2 who purchased that property clearly deposed about the payment of consideration to both the plaintiff and the defendant and narrated the other details in relation thereto and specific stand was taken about the family being joint at the relevant point of time too. It is no doubt true that some attempt was made by the defendant to establish that there had been some Panchayats and in pursuance thereof this property had been left in his favour by the plaintiff. It is needless to say that the burden is on him to establish the same. Whether the evidence available on record is sufficient so as to arrive at a conclusion that the stand taken by the defendant relating to relinquishment of the share by the plaintiff is the correct stand, would be the crucial question to be considered. Though a vague attempt was made that several other properties are available, no acceptable evidence is forthcoming before the Court. When the plea of Exchange is taken, the burden is on him to establish the same and the same is not evidenced by any registered document as such, but reliance was placed on only an unmarked endorsement. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff cannot be found fault for the lapse committed by the defendant in not marking the said endorsement despite the order made in the Civil Revision Petition by this Court referred to supra. In the light of the evidence of P. W. I which is highly doubtful whether the stand taken by the defendant which is no doubt not the specific stand but a vague stand, in the light of the evidence of one of the witnesses that the Exchange was in relation to the mamindlagudem land, this stand of the defendant is not acceptable in the light of the evidence of P. W. 2. This is the crucial aspect which would belie the stand taken by the defendant. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the evidence of P. W. I is clear and categorical and he is an illiterate person and the defendant is a literate person. The evidence of P. W. 2 is clear that both the plaintiff and the defendant sold the property and both of them had received the consideration and they continued to be joint at a particular point of time. The evidence of P. W. 2 is clear that both the plaintiff and the defendant sold the property and both of them had received the consideration and they continued to be joint at a particular point of time. The disruption, the severence of status or effecting partition or relinquishment of the share by a coparcener in favour of another coparcener, these are aspects which need clear proof. In the absence of the same, necessarily the Court may have to arrive at a conclusion that the jointness continues. In the light of this legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be found fault and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. ( 15 ) POINT No. 4: In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. No doubt, in view of the differences, the blood brothers are fighting this litigation and hence this Court directs the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.