JUDGMENT Defendants 7 to 9 in O.S.No.66/82 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment made therein preferred A.S.No.335/97. Likewise, the unsuccessful 2nd defendant being aggrieved of the said Decree and Judgment preferred A.S.No.371/97. The appellant/2 defendant in A.S.No.371/97 was shown as 4 respondent in A.S.No.335/97.Respondents 4, 5 and 6 in A.S.No.335/97 died and the legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 12 to respondents 22 by virtue of an order dated 1-10-2007 made in A.S.M.P.Nos.930, 2055 and 2053/2007. The legal representatives of the deceased 4th respondent were shown as respondents 21 and 22 and the legal representatives of the 6 respondent were shown as respondents 15 to 20. Likewise, the legal representatives of the 5th respondent were shown as respondents 12 to 14. 2. In A.S.M.P.No.1950/2007 in A.S.No.335/97, partial compromise was recorded on 2-11-2007 as hereunder:- 'The 1 appellant and the respondents 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 13 to 22 are present.Learned Counsel Smt.G.Sabitha, on special vakalat for R-12, learned Counsel Sri D.Venkata Reddy for the 1 appellant, learned Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy for respondents 1 and 2, learned Counsel Sri K.Basavayya, for R-15 to 20, learned Counsel Smt.Sabitha, for R-1 0 to R-14 and R-21 and R-22 are present and identified the parties. Sri C.Ramesh, learned Counsel for the appellants 2 and 3 who are arrayed as respondents 23 and 24 in the compromise petition. The 1 appellant and the respondents 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 13 to 22 and Special Vakalat Holder Smt.Sabitha, advocate, are present. The terms of compromise are read over and explained to all the parties who admitted them to be true and correct. In the light of the fact that the appellants 2 and 3, who are arrayed as R-23 and R-24, did not agree for the said compromise, necessarily, the said compromise would be subject to the result of the appeal, lest unnecessary complication would arise. The compromise would be recorded subject to the result of the appeal. Therefore, post the main appeal for hearing on 23-11-2007." In the light of the same, inasmuch as the legal representatives of the appellant in A.S.No.371/97, shown as 4th respondent in A.S.No.335/97 and the legal representatives shown as respondents 21 and 22 having entered into compromise as already specified supra, no further orders need be passed in A.S.No.371/97 and accordingly the Appeal A.S.No.371/97 is hereby closed. As far as A.S.No.335/95 is concerned, the 1 appellant/7 defendant entered into compromise and the parties unwilling to enter into compromise are the rest of the appellants/appellants 2 and 3/defendants 8 and 9 respectively, the said Appeal, in the light of the aforesaid facts, to be decided on merits since the appellants 2 and 3 who were shown as respondents 23 and 24 in A.S.M.P.No.1950/2007 did not agree for the compromise and specifically an order was made on 2-11-2007 that necessarily the said compromise would be subject to the result of the Appeal, lest unnecessary complication would arise and that the terms recorded would be subject to the result of the Appeal, it is needless to say that the said compromise would be binding and operative between the parties, no doubt subject to the result of the appeal A.S.No.335/97. 3. Heard Sri Ramesh Sagar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants 2 and 3 in A.S.No.335/97 and Sri P.Venkata Reddy, representing 1 appellant and Sri P.Veera Reddy, Counsel representing the contesting respondents/plaintiffs. 4. Submissions of Sri Ramesh Sagar: Sri Ramesh Sagar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants 2 and 3/ defendants 8 and 9 made the following submissions: 5. The learned Counsel would maintain that the trial Court did not appreciate the entire evidence available on record properly.The learned Counsel also would maintain that late Mohd.Khasim Sahab virtually gifted Items 1, 3, 11, 15, 16 and 20 of A Schedule in favour of the appellants and had put them in possession and the same was reiterated by virtue of a notarized memorandum. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the 1 defendant prior to her death had settled her share of the properties in favour of the 1 appellant/7 defendant under a registered settlement deed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the trial Court totally erred in recording certain findings that the formalities of a valid gift had not been complied with and further totally erred in holding that possession had not been delivered to the appellants. The learned Counsel also would maintain that respondents 1 and 2 failed to prove that late Mohd.Khasim Sahab was in possession of the properties gifted to the appellants. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of D.W.10 and Exs.B-67 to 8-88, 8-89, 8-90, 8-91, 8-111, 8-112 and 8-182. The learned Counsel also would maintain that respondents 1 and 2 failed to prove that late Mohd.Khasim Sahab was in possession of the properties gifted to the appellants. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of D.W.10 and Exs.B-67 to 8-88, 8-89, 8-90, 8-91, 8-111, 8-112 and 8-182. The Counsel also made elaborate submissions in relation to Exs.B-40 and 8-66 as well and further relied upon Exs.8-183, 8-184 and 8-185. Further, the learned Counsel had taken this Court through the voluminous oral evidence available on record apart from the documentary evidence and would maintain that since the defence had been well established, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained and thus the Preliminary Decree made by the trial Court also cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the Counsel would maintain that since these parties had been living with the said late Mohd.Khasim Sahab, the question of separate delivery of possession may not be necessary. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Abdul Sattar Ostagar and another v. Abu Bakkar Ostagar and others, Chota Uddandu Sahib v. Masthan Bi (died) and others . 6. Submissions of Sri Venkat Reddy: Sri Venkat Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 1 appellant would maintain that in the light of the amicable compromise between the parties, the terms of compromise arrived at by the parties may have to be given effect to. 7. Submissions of Sri Veera Reddy: Sri Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs would maintain that the legal representatives of the 2 defendant/appellant in A.S.No.371/97 had entered into amicable compromise and the terms of the compromise agreed upon to be given effect to so far as they relate to the parties to the compromise. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the defendants 8 and 9/ appellants 2 and 3 in A.S.No.335/97 just adopted the written statement filed by the 7 defendant and not beyond thereto though some additional written statement was filed at a later point of time. The learned Counsel also would maintain that these parties had not chosen even to enter into the witness box. The 7 defendant alone was examined as D.W.8 and thus the parties were not even examined. The learned Counsel also would maintain that these parties had not chosen even to enter into the witness box. The 7 defendant alone was examined as D.W.8 and thus the parties were not even examined. The Counsel also pointed out to Exs.B-40 and B-66 and made elaborate submissions on the aspect relating to the ingredients to be satisfied in the case of a gift by a Mohammedan and how the contesting parties miserably failed in establishing the said ingredients. While further elaborating his submissions, the Counsel had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the Appeal is bound to fail and further the learned Counsel in all fairness would maintain that despite the same as far as the parties to the compromise are concerned, the terms of the compromise which had been agreed upon and recorded in A.S.M.P.No.1950/97 in A.S.No.335/97 to be given effect to. 8. Heard the learned Counsel, perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the respective pleadings of the parties, Issues and additional Issues settled and also the findings recorded by the trial Court. 9. As already referred to supra, these two Appeals had been preferred i.e., A.S.No.335/97 by defendants 7, 8 and 9 and A.S.No.371/97 by 2nd defendant in O.S.No.66/82 aforesaid respectively. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in O.S.No.66/82 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur. It is needless to say that at the appellate stage, certain respondents died and their legal representatives as already specified supra had been brought on record. 10. Respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs instituted the suit aforesaid praying for the relief of partition of plaint A and B Schedule properties into eight equal shares and for allotment of one such share to each of them and for recovery of past profits and for the last two years and for future profits and for costs of the suit. The 1 defendant died pendentelite and defendants 7 to 9 were brought on record as legal representatives by virtue of an order made in I.A.No.1184/82 dated 20-3-1984. 11. Averments made in the plaint: The 1 defendant is the mother of the plaintiffs as well as defendants 2 to 5. The 1 defendant died pendentelite and defendants 7 to 9 were brought on record as legal representatives by virtue of an order made in I.A.No.1184/82 dated 20-3-1984. 11. Averments made in the plaint: The 1 defendant is the mother of the plaintiffs as well as defendants 2 to 5. The plaintiffs father late Mohd.Khasim Saheb had extensive properties shown under A and B Schedules. He had two' sons and six daughters and he died on 22-3-1980 intestate.His eldest son Maqbool Ahmad and another daughter Anwarunnisa pre-deceased him and both died on 22-12-1971 and 22-4-1972 respectively. Late Mohd.Khasim Saheb before his demise was suffering from cancer and was in unconscious state for more than 25 days. Ultimately he died on 22-3-1980. On his demise, all his properties devolved on the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 5 who are in joint possession. As per Muslim Law, the 1 defendant is entitled to 1/8 share while the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 3 to 5 became entitled to 1/8 share each and the 2nd defendant as the son is entitled to two shares as a residuary Le., 2/81h share in the plaint schedule. The plaint A Schedule are landed properties while the plaint B Schedule are the house properties. Thus the 1 defendant is entitled to 1/8 share while the 2 defendant is entitled to 2/8 share and the plaintiffs and the defendants 3 to 5 are each entitled to 1/8th share in the plaint A and B Schedules.The plaintiffs and the defendants 3 to 5 are married and are residing at different places along with their husbands. The 1 defendant is ailing with paralysis and is in unconscious sense. The plaintiffs had been demanding for partition of the properties which the defendants had been postponing on some pretext or the other. The plaintiffs came to know that with a view to deprive the plaintiffs of their legitimate share in the properties of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb, the defendants 1 and 2 and the other defendants are making frivolous attempts and bringing into existence bogus and collusive documents and are also trying to sell away the properties to others.Indeed, the 2 defendant is trying to sell away some of the properties shown under A Schedule to the 6th defendant and as such he is added as a party to the suit. The plaintiffs also became aware that the 2 defendant is addicted to evil habits and had abandoned his wife and children and was living with another woman and in whose favour he is trying to make bogus alienations. As the 2nd defendant is acting against the interests of the other co-sharers, the plaintiffs have no other options except to seek for partition of the plaint A and B Schedules into eight equal shares and allotment of one such share to each of the plaintiffs and the defendants 3 to 5 and two such shares to the 2 defendant as per the Muslim Law. The plaintiffs also claim past profits, future, profits and for costs. In the course of time, if the plaintiffs are able to obtain information as to other properties owned by late Mohd.Khasim Saheb, the plaintiffs may be permitted to include the same in the Schedules. 12. The 151 defendant died intestate pending trial and a Memo had been filed to the effect that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 2 to 5 are the legal representatives and are already on record.An application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been made alleging that after the demise of their mother/ 1 defendant, all of them are entitled to 1/7 share each as their mother died intestate and the pleadings had been suitably amended to the effect that the 1 defendant who died intestate was unconscious and continued to be so till her death and hence the plaintiffs became entitled to 2/7 share in the Schedule and they are entitled to two shares out of seven shares and for mesne profits. Consequently, 2/8 share had been deleted and 2/7 share had been substituted in the pleadings and in the same way seven shares had been substituted in the place of eight shares in the pleadings. 13. Averments made in the written statement of the 200 defendant: The relationship between the parties had been admitted. It was also admitted that the plaintiffs are each entitled to 2/8 share in the estate of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb, but he did not die possessed of A and B Schedules, the movables, cash, gold and silver wear and jewellery of the family. It was also admitted that the plaintiffs are each entitled to 2/8 share in the estate of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb, but he did not die possessed of A and B Schedules, the movables, cash, gold and silver wear and jewellery of the family. The movables is suppressed and is not shown as property for partition and as such partition in partial had been sought for and therefore the suit is not maintainable. It was further pleaded that Late Mohd.Khasim Saheb died on 22-3-1980 and before his demise, his second daughter-Anwarunnisa and his eldest son Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed died on consecutive dates on which late Mohd.Khasim Saheb was very much upset.The said Maqbool Ahmed was survived by his wife and three sons and under Mohammedan Law, children of his predeceased son would not get any right in the property. Therefore, late Mohd.Khasim Saheb made a gift (Hiba) of certain properties to the 2nd defendant, his surviving son as well as the sons of the pre-deceased son as aforesaid. The Hiba was reiterated in memorandums on 14-3-1980 duly signed by late Mohd.Khasim Saheb and not arised. The memorandums are the evidence of the items of the property given to the 2 defendant. The plaintiffs and other sisters of the 2 defendant are fully aware of the above Hiba in favour of the 2 defendant, his possession since then and dealings with these items in his right. It is only to get over the Hiba and the subsequent memorandum, the plaintiffs set up a false story that late Mohd.Khasim Saheb was unconscious for more than 25 days. The Doctor attending on him certified that he was conscious. Even in case of Cancer, the faculties of the brain will not be affected.The Hiba in favour of the 2 defendant covers items 4, 5, 13, 14, 17, 21 and 22 of the A Schedule and in these properties the plaintiffs cannot claim any partition as late Mohd.Khasim Saheb did not possess them.The said late Mohd.Khasim Saheb died indebted and the debts owned by him was the amount due to the Bank of Baroda for purchase of tractor. Late Mohd.Khasim Saheb purchased the same mortgaging the family property for use in the extensive lands of the family. Though he purchased the tractor in the name of the 2 defendant, the tractor is the family asset and the liability is also the liability of the heirs. Late Mohd.Khasim Saheb purchased the same mortgaging the family property for use in the extensive lands of the family. Though he purchased the tractor in the name of the 2 defendant, the tractor is the family asset and the liability is also the liability of the heirs. The tractor is not shown as property for partition with a view to avoid the liability. The Bank of Baroda had filed O.S.No.435/81. The heirs of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb have to share the liability in proportion to their shares. When the property is divided, the tractor is not necessary any more for cultivation and the same may be sold and the debt paid and any balance if any payable, the same will be shared by the heirs in proportion to their shares. The plaintiffs never demanded their share. The plaintiffs had been residing with the 1 defendant till her death. As the 2 defendant was not able to permanently stay at Venigandla as he has a tractor at Rayanapadu near Vijayawada and his wife is a Registered Medical Practitioner at Guntur, taking advantage of their stay, all the movables including gold and silver wear, jewellery and cash had been carried away by the plaintiffs. When the 2nd defendant demanded, they came forward with the suit.The 2 defendant also submits that the plaintiffs carried away Schedule I of movable property. The 2 defendant had always been ready and willing to give the plaintiffs their legitimate share provided they bring any movables fully described in the Schedule appended to the written statement. The 2 defendant also denied the allegations in para-2 of the plaint and it was further pleaded that he never made any attempt to sell away the property. He sold Item No.22 of the Schedule which is covered by Hiba by his father late Mohd.Khasim Saheb to the 2 defendant and the plaintiffs cannot object to it as it is his property as the plaintiffs have no right in it. The 2 defendant was not addicted to evil habits and it is curious that the plaintiffs being sisters could allege the vices to the 2 defendant while himself and his wife are leading a happy life. The plaintiffs are not entitled to past profits at exaggerated figures mentioned and the same reveals the avarice of the plaintiffs. Therefore the suit may be dismissed with costs being one for partial partition. 14. The plaintiffs are not entitled to past profits at exaggerated figures mentioned and the same reveals the avarice of the plaintiffs. Therefore the suit may be dismissed with costs being one for partial partition. 14. Averments made in the written statement of the 3 defendant: It was pleaded that the plaintiffs suppressed the fact that late Mohd.Khasim Saheb during his life time gifted items 1 to 3, 8 to 11, 15, 16 and 20 of the Plaint A Schedule property and another item of Acs.1-15 cents in D.No.128-B of Venigandla to the three sons of Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed, the eldest brother of the plaintiffs and the 3 respondent and the donees are in possession of the properties gifted to them and they are necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiffs are aware of this but suppressed the fact that late Mohd.Khasim Saheb gifted Items 4, 5, 13, 14, 17, 21 and 22 of A Schedule to the 2nd defendant who is in possession of the same. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the three sons of the eldest son of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb are not impleaded as parties. The plaintiffs are also fully aware that late 1 defendant gifted her share of the property to Mohd.Mahaboob Alipasha, the eldest son of her deceased eldest son.Except the said Alipasha, no one is entitled to the share of the deceased 1 defendant. The plaintiffs are also aware that Item 1 of the B Schedule is in possession of the 2 defendant and the three sons of eldest brother of the plaintiffs and that Item No.2 of the B Schedule is in possession of the 4 defendant and that Item No.3 of B Schedule is in the occupation of the 5 defendant. The 3 defendant as well as the plaintiffs are bound by the acts made by their late parents and hence the suit may be dismissed with costs. 15. Averments made in the written statement of the 6 defendant: The 6 defendant purchased Item No.22 of the A Schedule to an extent of Acs.1-25 cents for valid consideration of Rs.8125/- and obtained registered sale deed and had been in possession and enjoyment thereof since the date of sale deed dated 14-12-1981. It was further pleaded that he purchased it on the representation of the 2 defendant that it fell to his share. It was further pleaded that he purchased it on the representation of the 2 defendant that it fell to his share. Even if the pleadings of the plaintiffs are true, this item has got to be allotted to the share of the 2 defendant and hence it cannot be divided among other sharers. The 6th defendant denied the allegations in para-2 of the plaint and hence the suit may be dismissed with costs. 16. Averments made in the written statement of the 7 defendant: Defendants 7 to 9, sons of Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed, deceased eldest son of late Mohd.Khasim Sahab came on record by virtue of orders in I.A.No.1184/82. The 7th defendant filed written statement and the defendants 8 and 9 filed a Memo of Adoption.It was pleaded that the entire plaint schedule belonged to late Mohd.Khasim Saheb and 1 defendant is his wife. Defendants 2 to 5 are his children. In addition to them, late Mohd.Khasim Saheb had another son by name Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed and Anwarunnisa. Late Mohd.Khasim Saheb died on 22-3-1980. Before his death, late Mohd.Khasim Saheb gifted Items 1, 3, 8, 11, 15, 16, 20 to the 7 defendant and his two brothers i.e., defendants 8 and 9 on Ramzan festival day in 1974. The properties were in possession of them. The same was accepted by the 7 defendant both on his behalf and on behalf of his minor brothers i.e., defendants 8 and 9. Ever since, they had been in continuous possession and enjoyment thereof in their own right. This fact was also known to one and all in the village including the plaintiffs as well as the defendants 1 to 6. Later on, in recognition of the Hiba on 14-3-1980, late Mohd.Khasim Saheb had also executed memorandum and got the same registered by Notary Sri K.V. Ratnam Chowdary and the same was also attested by the 2 defendant and son-in-law of the 1 plaintiff. Similarly, some of the plaint schedule properties were also gifted by late Mohd.Khasim Saheb to his son, the 2 defendant. The allegations in para-2 of the plaint had been denied. It was further pleaded that the 1 defendant died pendente lite. Before her demise and while she was in sound and disposing state of mind, she settled her right in the properties left out by her husband in favour of the 7th defendant. The allegations in para-2 of the plaint had been denied. It was further pleaded that the 1 defendant died pendente lite. Before her demise and while she was in sound and disposing state of mind, she settled her right in the properties left out by her husband in favour of the 7th defendant. She had also executed a regular settlement deed on 12-3-1982 and got it registered on 18-3-1982. Consequent thereto, 1/8th share of the 1st defendant in the properties left out by her late husband may be allotted to himself. Therefore, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants 2 to 5 have any right in the 1/8 share of the properties left out by late Mohd.Khasim Saheb. The court fee paid is not correct and the plaintiff should have paid the Court fee under Section 34(1) of the Act 7/1956. The plaintiffs are not entitled to anyone of the past profits on the entire A and B Schedule properties and the profits claimed are very excessive. The 7 defendant has no objection for passing a decree for partition of the A and B Schedule properties after deleting the properties gifted to the 2nd defendant as well as defendants T to 9 but without costs and hence the suit may be dismissed with costs. 17. The 10 defendant was brought on record by virtue of an order made in I.A.No.425/89 on the ground that he had entered into a contract. However he had not chosen to contest the matter. Defendants 4 and 5 also had not chosen to contest the matter. 18. Defendants 11 and 12, wife and daughter of the 2 defendant, were brought on record by virtue of an order made in I.A.No.185/89. 19. Averments made in the additional written statement of the 2 defendant: It was pleaded that late Mohd.Khasim Saheb did not possess entire Item 4 of B Schedules. Ac.O-01 Y2 cents of item 4 of B Schedule was sold by late Mohd.Khasim Saheb during his life time with a view to confirm "Vasthu". He received the entire consideration but did not perform the contract of sale. After his demise, the 2 defendant executed a sale deed in terms of the contract for sale and therefore the extent of Item No.4 of the plaint B Schedule is incorrect.Consequently, the boundaries are also incorrect. The defendants 11 and 12 are not necessary parties to the partition. After his demise, the 2 defendant executed a sale deed in terms of the contract for sale and therefore the extent of Item No.4 of the plaint B Schedule is incorrect.Consequently, the boundaries are also incorrect. The defendants 11 and 12 are not necessary parties to the partition. The 11 defendant being the wife and the 12th defendant being his daughter, during the life time of the 2 defendant they have no rights in the share to be allotted to him in the suit.They are set up by the plaintiffs to add themselves as parties only to harass the 2 defendant. The 2 defendant already divorced the 11 defendant and therefore she has no right in the 2 defendant's share. 20. Averments made in the additional written statement of the 8 defendant: It was pleaded that the property shown as Item No.4 of the plaint B Schedule originally belonged to Rahimunnisa, wife of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb. She purchased the same with their own money. Before her demise, she gifted the same along with her 1/8 share in the plaint schedule property to Witnesses examined for Plaintiffs: P.W.1 - Amirunnisa Begum P.W.2 - G.V.Nagireddi P.W.3 - K.Baba Tajuddin P.W.4 - Sk.Bhaji Shariff him by way of gift deed dated 12-3-1982.The said gift was voluntarily executed and duly attested and the same was also acted upon and hence neither the plaintiffs nor the other defendants have got any right in the said item. The demarcation number of the said item is 308/A3 and not 308/11. The said item was unnecessarily included in the plaint schedule and it has to be deleted and cannot be partitioned and hence the suit may be dismissed with costs. 21. Issues and additional Issues settled by the trial Court : Issues: 1. Whether late Mohd.Khasim Saheb did possess of any other properties besides A and B Schedule properties? 2. Whether the suit as filed is not maintainable? 3. Whether the gift pleaded by the 2 defendant is true? 4. Whether the debts pleaded by the 2 defendant are true ? 5. To what relief? Additional Issues: 1. Whether the defendants 11 and 12 are not necessary parties? 2. Whether the father of the 2 defendant sold AC.0-01 1/2 cents of land in Item No.4 of B Schedule property and received the entire sale consideration? 22. 4. Whether the debts pleaded by the 2 defendant are true ? 5. To what relief? Additional Issues: 1. Whether the defendants 11 and 12 are not necessary parties? 2. Whether the father of the 2 defendant sold AC.0-01 1/2 cents of land in Item No.4 of B Schedule property and received the entire sale consideration? 22. Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties: Witnesses examined for defendants: DW.1 - Shaik Sarolan Saheb D.W.2 - K.Venkataratnam Chowdary DW.3 - Shaik Usnam Basha DW.4 - Shaik Imam DW.5 - Abdul Subhan D.W.6 - Atmakuri Subba Reddi D.W.7 - Dr.R.Venkateswararao D.W.8 - Mohammad Mahaboob Ali Pasha D.W.9 - Tiyyagura Subba Reddi D. W.1 0 - Mogal Mowla Baig @ Mowla Saheb D.W.11 - T.Rama Raju Documents marked for plaintiffs: EX.A.1/3-1-1979- Inland letter written by D.W.1 to Baba Tajuddin Ex.A.2/12-12-1983-Registration copy of sale deed executed by D.W.1 in favour of Munnangi Venkata Reddi etc. Ex.A.3/19-12-1979- Letter written by D.W.8 to Baba Tajuddin Ex.A.4/3-7-1978- Inland letter written by late Mohd.Khasim Saheb to P.W.3 to yth defendant EX.A.5/21-9-1978 - -do - -do EX.A.6/20-2-1979 - -do- -do EX.A.7 /14-9-1979 - -do- -do Ex.A.8/1 0-1-1979 - -do- written by 2nd defendant to P.W.3 EX.A.9/8-1 0-1979 - -do- -do- 7th defendant to P.W.3 EX.A-1 0/4-3-1980 - -do- -do- 7th defendant to P.W.3 Documents marked for defendants: EX.B.1/27-3-1975- C.C. of Gist receipt EX.B.2/27-3-1975- -doEX.B.3/30-1-1976 - -do EX.B.4/22-6-1976 - -doEX.B.5/16-2-1977 - -do EX.B.6/21-1-1982 - -do EX.B.7/4-7-1978- Sale patti issued by Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.8/27-6-1978- -do EX.B.9/3-2-1977 - -do EX.B.1 0/24-4-1976 - -do EX.B.11/27-12-1975 - -do EX.B.12/1-1-1976 - -do EX.B.13/26-7-1975 - -do- C.C. of cist receipts Ex.B.15/18-1-1975 -do- Ex.B. -do- 17/16-4-1976 - Leaf purchase voucher issued by Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co., Ltd., in favour of 2nd defendant Ex.B.18/7-4-1976 Receipt issued by Chandrasekhara Zinning Mill, Guntur towards purchase of MCU cotton Q.30-50 kgs. from 2nd defendant EX.B.19/27-12-1975 - Amanath Patti (storage slip) receipt issued by Gowrisankar Trading Co., Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.20/17-10-1986 - Bill issued by M/s.Jagariamudi Chandramouli, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.21/25-11-1986 - -do- EX.B.22/20-6-1977 - Bill issued by M/s.Setharamanjaneya Fertilisers, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.23/20-6-1977 - Receipt issued by Sri Laxmi Traders, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant Bill issued by Kakumanu Krishnamurthy & Co., Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.25/30-9-1976 - Bill issued by Indofarm Services, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.26/22-6-1977 - Bill issued by Sri Laxmi Traders, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant Receipt issued by M/s.Sri Seetharamanjaneya Fertilisers in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.28/9-10-1976 - Receipt issued by Sri Laxmi Enterprises, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.29/28-11-1976 - Bill issued by Sri Laxmi Traders, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.30/12-11-1975 - -do- -do- EX.B.31/15-10-1975 - Bill issued by Sri Mohanrao & Co., Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.32/17-12-1975 - Receipt issued by Sri Mohanrao & Co., Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.33/5-11-1975 - Receipt issued by Jai Kisan Fertilisers, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.34/18-10-1975 - Receipt issued by Narella Mohanrao & Co., Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.35/17-10-1975 - -do- -do- EX.B.36/17-1 0-1975 - Receipt issued by Laxmi Traders, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.37/12-11-1975 -do- -do- EX.B.38/30-8-1977 - Demand Promissory note executed by 2nd defendant in favour of State Bank of India, Guntur (endorsement paid the amount). Ex.B.39/4-6-1977 - Demand promissory note executed by Jamili Gopalarao, Maddali Venkateswararao Cotton Traders, Guntur in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.40/14-3-1980 - Memorandum relating to past Hiba or oral gift executed by Md.Khasim Saheb in favour of 2nd defendant EX.B.41/14-9-1987 - Carbon copy of Talaknama executed by Shaik Sardar Saheb to Mahammda Begum d/o.Khadarvali EX.B.42/14-9-1987 - Copy of registered notice got issued by III party advocate to Mehamood Begum EX.B.43/9-8-1973 - Marriage agreement between 2nd defendant and Katari Sarojini EX.B.44/12-2-1990 - House tax receipt for Asst.No.429 issued by Venegalla Gram Panchayat EX.B.45/12-2-1990 - House tax receipt for Asst.No.393, issued by Venegalla Gram Panchayat EX.B.46/12-2-1990 - House tax receipt for Asst.No.433, issued by Venegalla Gram Panchayat EX.B.47/6-10-1988 - House tax receipt for Asst.No.429 -do- EX.B.48/6-1 0-1988 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.393 -do- EX.B.49/6-1 0-1988 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.393 -do- EX.B.50/29-3-1988 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.429 -do- EX.B.51/27-3-1988 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.433 -do- EX.B.52/29-3-1988 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.393 -do- Ex.B.53/31-3-1987 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.374 -do- EX.B.54/31-3-1987 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.378 -do- EX.B.55/31-3-1987 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.339 -do- EX.B.56/6-11-1985 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.378 -do- Ex.B.57/6-11-1985 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.339 -do- EX.B.58/6-11-1985 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.374 -do- EX.B.59/21-12-1984 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.374 -do- Ex.B-60/19-3-1985 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.378 -do- EX.B-61/12-12-1984 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.339 -do- EX.B.62/5-3-1983 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.378 -do- Ex.B.63/5-3-1983 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.339 -do- EX.B.64/5-3-1983 - -do- -do- for Asst.No.374 -do- EX.B.65/14-12-1981 - Registered sale deed etd by Shaik Sardar Saheb in favour of Kondamadugula Sambi Reddi Ex.B.66/14-3-1980 - Memorandum relating to past oral gift or Hiba executed by late Mohd.Khasim Saheb in favour of Mahammed Mahaboob Ali Pasha and 2 others EX.B.67/11-2-1975 - Call receipt EX.B.68/27-3-1975 - -do- EX.B.69/27-3-1975 - -do- EX.B.70/30-1-1976 - -do- EX.B.71/22-6-1976 - -do- Ex. B. 72/22-6-1976 - -do- EX.B.73/16-2-1977 - -do- Ex.B. 74/11-2-1979 - -do- EX.B. 75/11-2-1979 - -do- EX.B.76/5-2-1981 - -do- EX.B.77/25-2-1982 - -do- EX.B.78/23-2-1985 - -do- Ex. B. 72/22-6-1976 - -do- EX.B.73/16-2-1977 - -do- Ex.B. 74/11-2-1979 - -do- EX.B. 75/11-2-1979 - -do- EX.B.76/5-2-1981 - -do- EX.B.77/25-2-1982 - -do- EX.B.78/23-2-1985 - -do- Ex. B. 79/15-3-1986 --do- EX.B.80/26-4-1986 - -do- EX.B.81/3-3-1987 - -do- EX.B.82/3-3-1987 - -do- Ex.B.83/3-3-1987 - -do- Ex.B.84/3-3-1987 - -do- Ex.B.85/29-2-1988 - -do- EX.B.86/29-2-1988 - -do- EX.B.87/29-2-1988 - -do- Ex.B.88/28-3-1988 - -do- EX.B.89/ - Ryotwari passbook EX.B.90/ - Ryotwari passbook EX.B.91/29-7-1975 Sale patti issued by Agricultural Market Committee Weighing receipt issued by -do- EX.B.92/21-2-1976 –do -do- EX.B.93/21-2-1976 –do -do- EX.B.94/29-7-1974 –do -do- Ex.B.95/28-1 0-1976 –do -do- Ex.B.96/1-11-1976 –do -do- EX.B.97/21-2-1976 –do -do- EX.B.98/13-12-1979 –do -do- Ex.B.99/17 -12-1979 - Sale patti issued by Agrl.Market Committee EX.B.100/25-5-1982 - –do -do- EX.B.101/10-6-1982 –do -do- EX.B.1 02/24-1-1983 –do -do- Ex. B.1 03/25-1-1983 –do -do- Ex.B.1 04/18-1-1985 –do -do- EX.B.1 OS/21-3-1983 - Weight list of cotton sold to cotton crop of India Ltd. EX.B.1 06/21-3-1983 –do -do- EX.B.1 07/25-3-1983 –do -do- EX.B.1 08/31-3-1986 - Bill issued by Sri Tirumala Cotton Trading Company to 7th defendant duly purchased by him EX.B.1 09/29-9-1986 - Bill issued by Gouri Sankar Tr.Co. to 7th defendant duly purchased by him EX.B.11 0/30-11-1987 - Bill issued by Sri Tirumala Cotton Tr.Company to 7th defendant duly purchased by him EX.B.111/20-2-1988 - -do- -do- EX.B.112/17-10-1975 - Bill issued by Sri Venkateswara Agencies for purchase of pesticides by 7th defendant EX.B.113/20-1 0-1975 - -do- -do EX.B.114/27-12-1975 - Bill issued by Sri Laxmi Trading for purchase of Fertilisers by 7th defendant EX.B.115/11-9-1976 - Bill issued by Sri Karumanchi Siva Rama Krishna Prasad Fertilisers EX.B.116/29-9-1976 - Bill issued by Sri Laxmi Enterprises for purchase of fertilizers by J1h defendant EX.B.117/30-9-1976- -do- -do EX.B.118/19-1 0-1976 - Bill issued by Indo Far.Service, Guntur for Pesticides EX.B.119/18-11-1976 - Bill issued by Sri Srinivasa Manure Depot for fertilizers EX.B.120/22-6-1977 - Bill issued by Sri Laxmi Fertilisers, Guntur for purchasing fertilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.121/23-8-1980 - Bill issued by Sri Annapurna Rice & Manure Depot for purchasing fertilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.122/23-8-1980 - Bill issued by Sri Sivanageswari Fertilisers for purchasing fertilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.123/14-11-1982 - Bill issued by Reddi Pesticides for purchasing fertilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.124/9-11-1982 - Bill issued by Nirmala fertilizers for purchasing fertilizers by J1h defendant . EX.B.125/24-10-1982 - -do- -do EX.B.126/27-9-1982 - -do- -do Ex.B.127/20-1 0-1983 - Bill issued by Srinivasa Fertilisers by 7th defendant EX.B.128/17 -10-1983 - Bill issued by Nirmala Fertilisers by 7th defendant Ex.B.129/12-8-1983 - Bill issued by Srinivasa Traders by 7th defendant EX.B.130/13-1-1983 - Bill issued by the Pioneer Fertilisers by 7th defendant EX.B.131/13-1-1983 - -do- -do EX.B.132/31-1 0-1984 - Bill issued by Nirmala Fertilisers by 7th defendant Ex. B .133/20-1 0-1984 - -do- -do EX.B.134/9-1 0-1984 - Bill issued by Nirmala Fertilisers for purchase of fertilizer by Jlh defendant EX.B.135/8-10-1984 -do- -do EX.B.135/20-9-1986 -do- -do EX.B.137/19-9-1984 -do- -do Ex. B.138/7 -9-1984 -do- -do EX.B.139/6-9-1984 -do- EX.B.140/20-8-1984 -do-do- EX.B.141/16-8-1984 -do-do- -do Ex. B.142/20-6-1984 - Bill issued by Mahandra Hybrid Seeds Co. for purchase of fertilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.143/20-6-1984 - -do- -do EX.B.144/21-1 0-1985 - Bill issued by Nirmala Fertilisers by 7th Defendant EX.B.145/1 0-1 0-1985 - -do- -doEx. B.146/16-9-1985 - -do- -doEx. B.14 7/11-9-1995 - -do- -do EX.B.148/5-9-1985 - -do- -do Ex. B.149/26-8-1985 - -do- -do EX.B.150/16-8-1985 - -do- -do EX.B.151/1-12-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.152/18-11-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.153/13-11-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.154/12-11-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.155/9-11-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.156/10-11-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.157/1-11-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.158/26-10-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.159/24-10-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.160/8-10-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.161/18-9-1986 - -do- -do Ex. B.162/15-9-1986 - -do- -do Ex. B.163/17 -8-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.164/16-9-1986 - -do- -do- Ex.B.165/20-6-1986 - -do- -do- EX.B.166/28-12-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.167/21-12-1987 - -do- -do- Ex.B. 168/9-12-1987 - -do- -do- Ex.B.169/14-11-1987 - -do- -do- Ex.B.170/24-9-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.171/16-9-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.172/9-9-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.173/6-9-1987 - -do- -do- Ex.B.174/5-9-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.175/26-8-1987 - -do- -do- Ex. B.162/15-9-1986 - -do- -do Ex. B.163/17 -8-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.164/16-9-1986 - -do- -do- Ex.B.165/20-6-1986 - -do- -do- EX.B.166/28-12-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.167/21-12-1987 - -do- -do- Ex.B. 168/9-12-1987 - -do- -do- Ex.B.169/14-11-1987 - -do- -do- Ex.B.170/24-9-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.171/16-9-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.172/9-9-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.173/6-9-1987 - -do- -do- Ex.B.174/5-9-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.175/26-8-1987 - -do- -do- Ex. B.176/21-8-1987 - -do- -do- EX.B.177/13-6-1987 - Bill issued by Pioneer Fertilisers, Guntur for the purchase of fertilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.178/23-1-1987 - Bill issued by Satyasri Fertilisers for the purchase of fertilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.179/22-6-1988 - Bill issued by Rajyalakshmi Traders for the purchase of fertilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.180/28-1-1988 - Bill issued by Jagarlamudi Chandramouli for the purchase of fel1ilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.181/15-1-1988 - Bill issued by Nirmala Fertilisers for the purchase of fertilizers by 7th defendant EX.B.182/3-1-1988 -do- -do- EX.B.183/12-3-1982 - Registered gift executed by Rahimunnisabibi EX.B.184/19-1-1980 - C.C. of petition affidavit with Schedule in O.S.No.407/79, SubCourt, Vijayawada Ex.B.185/2-2-1980 - C.C. of order in O.S.No.407/79, Sub-Court, Vijayawada EX.B.186/27-3-1975 - Cist receipt in the name of Md.Khasim Saheb EX.B.187/27-3-1975 - -do- -do EX.B.188/22-6-1976 - -do- -do EX.B.189/22-6-1986 - -do- -do EX.B.190/16-12-1974- Sale patti EX.B.191/8-1-1975 - -do EX.B.192/19-4-1976 - -do EX.B.193/19-4-1976 - Storage patti EX.B.194/19-4-1976 - Copy of balance patti Ex.B.195/19-4-1976 - Copy of balance patti Ex. B.196/14-2-1977 - Sale patti EX.B.197/27-5-1975 - Bill for RS.1062.10 ps. in the name of Md.Khasim Saheb EX.B.198/20-1 0-1975 - Bill for RS.296-49 ps. B.196/14-2-1977 - Sale patti EX.B.197/27-5-1975 - Bill for RS.1062.10 ps. in the name of Md.Khasim Saheb EX.B.198/20-1 0-1975 - Bill for RS.296-49 ps. in the name of Md.Khasim Saheb EX.B.199/6-12-1975 - Bill in the name of Md.Khasim Saheb EX.B.200/12-6-1976 - -do- -do EX.B.201/1-9-1976 - Cash bill in the name of Md.Khasim Saheb EX.B.202/21-3-1975 - Inland letter written by P.W.3 to Khasim Saheb EX.B.203/23-4-1976 - Inland letter written by P.W.3 to his wife Documents marked by witnesses: EX.X.1 /14-9-1987 - Office copy of the Registered notice issued on behalf of Shaik Sardar Saheb to Smt.Mehmooda Begum Ex.X.2/14-9-1987- Carbon copy of Talak Nama Ex.X.3/23-9-1987- Returned egistered notice issued to Mehmooda Begum containing Talak Nama EX.X.4/23-9-1987 - Office copy of the Registered notice EX.X.5/23-9-1987 - Refused Registered notice EX.X.6/23-9-1987 - Notice under certificate of posting EX.X.7/23-9-1987 - Postal receipt of certificate of posting EX.X.8/23-9-1987 - Postal receipt EX.X.9/29-1-1988 - Notice sent to Circle Inspector of Police, Guntur EX.X.1 0/29-1-1988 - Receipt of certificate of posting Documents marked by Court : EX.C.1/27-3-1982 - Report of the Commissioner (P.W.2) EX.C.2/19-3-1982 - Notice issued by the Commissioner 23. Findings recorded by the trial Court in brief: While answering Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 and additional Issue dated 22-2-1990 and additional Issue No.1 dated 18-9-1996, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, findings had been recorded at paras 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and came to the conclusion that the parties miserably failed to establish the alleged gifts and ultimately came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs would be entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Further, findings had been recorded on additional Issue No.1 dated 22-2-1990 and Issues 1 and 2 dated 30-9-1996 and Issue No.5 and ultimately a Preliminary Decree was passed for division of A and B Schedules into eight shares in stead of seven shares since the trial Court upheld the gift of the share of late 1 defendant in favour of the 7 defendant, son of her pre-deceased son and allot one such share to each of the plaintiffs and two shares to the 2 defendant and one such share to the defendants 3 to 5 and further held Item No.22 of A Schedule i.e., Acs.1-25 cents to be allotted to the share of the 2 defendant in order to facilitate the 2nd defendant not to cause any prejudice to his vendee/6th defendant on his purchase of the said property on the representation of the 2 defendant that the same had fallen to his share in the division and therefore the said Item cannot be divided among the co-sharers. Further, the plaintiffs were directed to work out their past and future profits in separate proceedings and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. Hence, certain of the aggrieved defendants preferred the Appeals aforesaid. 24. Points for consideration : In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel on record, the following Points arise for consideration in this Appeal: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, DW.1 to D.W.11, Exs.A-1 to A-10, Exs.B-1 to B-203, Exs.X-1 to X-10 and Exs.C-1 and C-2 are liable to be disturbed or liable to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the findings recorded by the trial Court in relation to the memorandum relating to the past Hiba or oral gift, EX.B-40 dated 14-3-1980 and memorandum relating to past oral gift or Hiba dated 14-3-1980 Ex. B-66, are to be disturbed or liable to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the terms of compromise agreed upon and recorded by the parties to the compromise in A.S.M.P.No.1950/97 in A.S.No.335/97 are to be given effect to in the light of the said order dated 2-11-2007 ? 4. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 25. 3. Whether the terms of compromise agreed upon and recorded by the parties to the compromise in A.S.M.P.No.1950/97 in A.S.No.335/97 are to be given effect to in the light of the said order dated 2-11-2007 ? 4. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 25. Points 1 and 2: The facts in brief, the respective stands taken by the parties, the Issues and additional Issues settled, the findings recorded in nutshell by the trial Court, the reliefs prayed for and granted by the trial Court and how certain of the parties carried the matter by way of Appeals and how the legal representatives of certain of the deceased parties were brought on record and how partial compromise had been recorded and under what circumstances the Appeal is being heard on merits, no doubt in the light of the order already made while recording partial compromise so far as the same relates to certain parties to the compromise, had been already discussed supra. Hence the said facts need not be repeated again in detail. 26. The stand taken by the plaintiffs is that they are the daughters of one late Mohd.Khasim Sahab who had extensive properties described in Plaint A and B Schedules and the said late Mohd.Khasim Sahab had two sons and six daughters and he died intestate on 22-2-1980. It is also their case that on his demise, all his properties devolved upon all the plaintiffs, late 1 defendant and also defendants 2 to 5, the wife, son and daughters respectively.As per Mohammedan Law, each of them would be entitled to one share while the plaintiffs and defendants became entitled to one share, the 2 defendant/son is entitled to two shares as residuary i.e., 2/8 share.It appears, the 1 defendant was attacked with paralysis and was unable to move and subsequent thereto the 1 defendant died. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that they made a demand for division of the properties and the 1 defendant had been postponing the same on some ground or the other.Further, it is their case that the defendants 1 and 2 began making attempts to bring into existence untenable documents with a view .to defeat their legitimate rights. Defendants 2, 3, 7 to 9 are the sons of the deceased first son of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb. Defendants 2, 3, 7 to 9 are the sons of the deceased first son of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb. It is their case that the said late Mohd.Khasim Saheb died on 22-2-1980. It is also their case that several of the movables had been suppressed and what had been prayed for is only partial partition and hence such partial partition cannot be granted. No doubt certain other further facts also had been narrated.This question whether a suit for partial partition is maintainable or not had not been and how partial compromise had been recorded and under what circumstances the Appeal is being heard on merits, no doubt in the light of the order already made while recording partial compromise so far as the same relates to certain parties to the compromise, had been already discussed supra. Hence the said facts need not be repeated again in detail. 26. The stand taken by the plaintiffs is that they are the daughters of one late Mohd.Khasim Sahab who had extensive properties described in Plaint A and B Schedules and the said late Mohd.Khasim Sahab had two sons and six daughters and he died intestate on 22-2-1980. It is also their case that on his demise, all his properties devolved upon all the plaintiffs, late 1 defendant and also defendants 2 to 5, the wife, son and daughters respectively.As per Mohammedan Law, each of them would be entitled to one share while the plaintiffs and defendants became entitled to one share, the 2 defendant/son is entitled to two shares as residuary i.e., 2/8 share.It appears, the 1 defendant was attacked with paralysis and was unable to move and subsequent thereto the 1 defendant died. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that they made a demand for division of the properties and the 1 defendant had been postponing the same on some ground or the other.Further, it is their case that the defendants 1 and 2 began making attempts to bring into existence untenable documents with a view .to defeat their legitimate rights. Defendants 2, 3, 7 to 9 are the sons of the deceased first son of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb. It is their case that the said late Mohd.Khasim Saheb died on 22-2-1980. Defendants 2, 3, 7 to 9 are the sons of the deceased first son of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb. It is their case that the said late Mohd.Khasim Saheb died on 22-2-1980. It is also their case that several of the movables had been suppressed and what had been prayed for is only partial partition and hence such partial partition cannot be granted. No doubt certain other further facts also had been narrated.This question whether a suit for partial partition is maintainable or not had not been argued in elaboration by the Counsel on record. Hence, it may safely be taken that the parties to the litigation had given up the said contention. Even otherwise, it is needless to say that except appellants 2 and 3, the compromise had been recorded and those appellants no doubt have been prosecuting the appeal A.S.No.335/97. 27. However, the main ground of attack is in relation to EX.B-40 and B-66 dated 14-3-1980, the memorandum relating to the past oral gift or Hiba. The Counsel on record made elaborate submissions on the validity or otherwise of these controversial documents - Sri Ramesh Sagar contending that the said documents had been amply proved and the ingredients of gift under Mohammedan Law had been well established and on the contrary Sri Veera Reddy contending otherwise that none of the ingredients had been satisfied. In the decision referred (2) supra, a learned Judge of this Court while dealing with the essentials of a gift under Mohammedan Law observed: "Under Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, nothing in Chapter VII relates to gifts of movable property made in contemplation of death or shall be deemed to affect any rule of Mohammadan Law. According to the Mohammadan Law, there can be a valid gift, if three essentials of the gift are satisfied (1) a declaration of the gift by the donor, (2) the acceptance of the gift express or implied by or on behalf of the donee and (3) delivery of possession of the subject of gift by the donor to the donee. If these conditions are complied with the gift is complete. According to Muslim law it is not necessary that there should be a deed of gift in order to make it a valid gift, but of course, if there is a deed it should be registered. If these conditions are complied with the gift is complete. According to Muslim law it is not necessary that there should be a deed of gift in order to make it a valid gift, but of course, if there is a deed it should be registered. But if the deed is merely a memoranda of an already effected gift, then it stands on a separate footing. In view of this specific provision of Muslim La, which is saved by Section 129, it cannot be held that the gifts amongst muslims also should satisfy the provisions of Chapter VII. There is also no justification for making any distinction between secular and non-secular gifts as has been done by the learned Judge in the above decision. Moreover after the Shariat Act, 1937 (Central Act 26 of 1937) the Muslim personal law alone applies in the matter of gifts (See Bibi Maniran v. Md. Ishaque - AIR 1963 Pat.229. In view of this Act, the prior decision in Ma Asha v. B. K. Haldar (AIR 1936 Rang. 430) (FB) cannot be deemed to be the correct law. Moreover it has been held in Ghulam Ahmed v.Mohd. Sidiq (AIR 1974 J & K 59 (F. B.) by a Full Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court that after the amendment in 1929 in Section 129 the operation of the provisions of chapter VII have been excluded in regard to gifts made by persons professing muslim faith and made under that law. Hence if all the formalities, as prescribed by Muslim Law, regarding the making of gifts are satisfied, the gift is valid notwithstanding the fact that it is oral and without any instrument. If there is a contemporaneous document it should be registered. But if the gift is antecedent and the deed is subsequent merely evidencing the past transaction, it does not require registration, because it does not by itself make or complete the gift. This has already been the view expressed by my learned brother Sambasiva Rao., J in A.Srisailam v.A.Lingamma (1972) 2 An.W.R. (S.N.) 5. I do not find any precedent to support the view expressed by the learned Judge of the Kerala High Court in (AIR 1972 Ker.72) to make any distinction between gifts which are secular and non-secular in this respect. Hence with great respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to contribute to that view. I do not find any precedent to support the view expressed by the learned Judge of the Kerala High Court in (AIR 1972 Ker.72) to make any distinction between gifts which are secular and non-secular in this respect. Hence with great respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to contribute to that view. I have therefore to reject the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant, based on the above decision" . 28. Further, reliance was placed on a decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court referred (1) supra wherein the learned Division Bench observed that parting of possession is not necessary when father makes gift of the dwelling house to his sons and donor and the donees are residing therein and the learned Judge at para-9 further observed : "Mr.Mahindra Nath Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents draws our attention to the deed of gift Ext.B. He refers to the recitals in the deed and contends that from the recitals it cannot be said that the donor delivered possession to the donees. The relevant portion of the recitals is quoted below: "From this day all my right, title and interest will devolve on you.. ..you and your successors enjoy the property happily". From the recitals at best it can be gathered that the donor gave out that he was divested of right, title and interest of the property and the same devolved on the donees. But from the recitals it cannot be concluded that the possession was also intended to be delivered or in fact delivered to the donees. Mr.Ghosh submits that in order to make a deed of gift valid under Mohamedan law it is absolutely necessary that the possession should be delivered. Mr.Ghosh refers to several Articles in Tyabji's Mohammadan Law, 4th Edition to support his contention. In this connection Mr.Ghosh submits that the donor must in clear terms state "I give delivery of possession". Mr.Ghosh refers to a decision reported in AIR 1935 Bom.34 (Sugrabai v. Mohamedalli Ahmedalll). Mr.Ghosh refers to several Articles in Tyabji's Mohammadan Law, 4th Edition to support his contention. In this connection Mr.Ghosh submits that the donor must in clear terms state "I give delivery of possession". Mr.Ghosh refers to a decision reported in AIR 1935 Bom.34 (Sugrabai v. Mohamedalli Ahmedalll). It has been held in this case that in order to constitute a valid gift by a father in favour of his minor children, it is not necessary to transfer possession, but proof of bona fide intention to give must be established.But where the trust is not merely for the benefit of the minor children of the settler, but also of others and where the settler has not constituted himself the sole trustee, but there are other persons appointed trustees, the transfer of possession is necessary under the Mohamedan Law". Mr. Ghosh submits that in the present case it is true that one of the donees was minor son but the other donee was major, and the major son was described as guardian of the minor son in the deed of gift. This being the position, it was absolutely necessary to transfer possession. But in the present case it must be remembered that both the donor and the donees were residing in the same house which was the subject matter of the deed of gift and that being so, on the authority referred to above it cannot be said that it was necessary for the father after executing the deed to vacate the said dwelling house". 29. As already specified above, oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, D.W.1 to D.W.11 is available on record. Apart from the oral evidence, the registration copy of the sale deed executed by D.W.1 in favour of Munnangi Venkat Reddy EX.A-2 dated 12-12-1983 and further Exs.A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9 and A-10, the letters also had been strongly relied upon by the plaintiffs. Likewise, apart from the oral evidence available on record on behalf of the contesting defendants, the documentary evidence - cist receipts Exs.B-1 to B-6, the sale patties issued by Agricultural Market Committee - Exs.B-7 to B-16, B-95 to B-104, the Leave purchase voucher issued by Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co.Limited. Likewise, apart from the oral evidence available on record on behalf of the contesting defendants, the documentary evidence - cist receipts Exs.B-1 to B-6, the sale patties issued by Agricultural Market Committee - Exs.B-7 to B-16, B-95 to B-104, the Leave purchase voucher issued by Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co.Limited. in favour of the 2nd defendant Ex.B-17, receipt - EX.B-18, Amanath Patti - Ex.B-19, bills - Exs.B-20, B-21, B-22, B-24, B-25, B-26, B-29, B-30, B-31, B-108 to B-182, B-197, B-198, B-199, B-200, B-201, receipts - Exs.B-23, B-28, B-32, B-33, B-34, B-35, B-36, B-37, promissory notes - Exs.B-38 and B-39, carbon copy of talak nama - Ex.B-41, copy of registered notice - EX.B-42, marriage agreement between 2nd defendant and Katari Sarojini Ex.B-43, receipts - Exs.B-44 to B-64, registered sale deed dated 14-12-1981 executed by Shaik Sardar Saheb in favour of Kondamadugula Sambi Reddi - Ex.B-65, cist receipts - Exs.B-67 to B-88, ryotwari passbooks - Exs.B-89 and B-90, sale patties - EX.B-91 and B-196, weighing receipts issued by Agricultural Market Committee Exs.B-92, B-93, B-94, weight list of cotton sold - Exs.B-105 to B-107, had been marked. Further, the registered gift deed executed by Rahimunnisabibi EX.B-183 dated 12-3-1982, certified copy of petition affidavit with schedule in O.S.NoA07/79 on the file of Sub-Court, Vijayawada Ex.B-184, certified copy of order in O.S.NoA07/79 on the file of Sub-Court, Vijayawada - EX.B-185, cist receipts Exs.B-190, B-191, B-192, storage patti Ex. B-193, copies of balance patties Exs.B-194 and B-195, Inland letter Exs.B-202 and B-203 also had been relied upon. Apart from these documents, Exs.X-1 to X-10 and also EX.C-1 - report of the Commissioner (P.W.2) and EX.C-2 notice issued by the Commissioner also had been relied upon.30. Though voluminous documentary evidence had been placed to the effect that late Mohd.Khasim Saheb had extensive properties, this aspect is not in serious dispute. Several of the documents relied upon relate to the receipts, the bills and other particulars and details. Certain sale deeds also had been relied upon. The crucial documents, as already referred to above, are Exs.B-40 and B-66 and the validity thereof or whether the ingredients necessary for establishing a gift by Mohammedans had been established in the present case or not, these are the serious questions which had been argued at length. P.W.1 is the 2 plaintiff and this witness deposed that the 1 plaintiff is her sister and the 1 plaintiff is not conversant with Telugu. P.W.1 is the 2 plaintiff and this witness deposed that the 1 plaintiff is her sister and the 1 plaintiff is not conversant with Telugu. She had deposed about late Mohd.Khasim Saheb, her father and the death of the father and the relationship between the parties and she had also deposed that her father died out of throat cancer. She had also deposed about the particulars of the properties and also deposed about her pre-deceased elder brother and certain other particulars. This witness specifically deposed that till four months before his death, he was moving out and was attending to his duties. In 1974 her father did not give land to the sons of the deceased brother by way of Hiba. In 1974, he did not give any property to the 2 defendant by way of Hiba. This witness also deposed that it is not true to suggest that her father executed memorandum referring to earlier Hiba made by him in 1974. Further, P. W.1 deposed that it is not true that her father executed a contract of sale and received the entire consideration from the 6th defendant, but died without completing the transaction and she does not know whether the 2 defendant completed the transaction by executing the deed after the death of her father. Further, specifically P.w.1 deposed that as plaintiffs they are claiming shares in the entire property because according to them no Hiba ever had been executed by their deceased father.In the lengthy cross-examination of P.W.1, several facts had been elicited. 31. P.W.2 deposed that he was a practicing Advocate at Guntur and at present he is working as a Lecturer in A.C. College, Guntur and he was appointed as a Commissioner to note the condition of the 1 defendant in the suit and he had visited the 1 defendant in Venigalla at her house on 20-3-1982 and noted her condition of health. EX.C-1 is the report and EX.C-2 is the notice. At the time of his visit, the 11 defendant who was practicing as an Advocate informed him that he was treating her. He told him that he was practicing in Medicine also. Certain comments had been made in relation to the evidence of P.W.2 by both the Counsel on record. 32. EX.C-1 is the report and EX.C-2 is the notice. At the time of his visit, the 11 defendant who was practicing as an Advocate informed him that he was treating her. He told him that he was practicing in Medicine also. Certain comments had been made in relation to the evidence of P.W.2 by both the Counsel on record. 32. P .W.3 deposed that the 1 plaintiff is his mother in law and defendants 2 and 7 are cordial in terms with him and late Khasim Saheb visited his village and stayed for some time with him. Late Khasim Saheb and defendants 2 to 7 used to write letters to him. Late Khasim Saheb can read Telugu fluently. He was writing letters in his own hands. Late Khasim Saheb was owning about 50 acres of land and he did not bequeath any part of his property to anyone during his life time and he did not sign any Hiba said to have been executed by late Mohd.Khasim Saheb. The signature purporting that of to be K.Baba in EX.B-40 is not that of this witness. EX.A-2 is the letter written by the 2 defendant to him at Mahaboobnagar. EX.A-3 also is a letter written by the 2nd defendant. This witness deposed in relation to Exs.A-4, A-6 and A-7. This witness also deposed that the nurse referred to in EX.A-7 is the second wife of the 2 defendant. P. W.3 also deposed about Exs.A-8, A-9 and A-10 as well. This witness was cross-examined in elaboration. This witness no doubt deposed that he cannot say whether the signatures purporting to be of this witness in EX.B-40 or B-66 are same. Several suggestions put this witness had been specifically denied.No doubt some comment had been made that this witness is an interested otherwise.P.W.4, Sk.Bhaji Shariff also had been examined. 33. The 2nd defendant in the suit was examined as D.W.1. This specifically deposed about the Hiba made on the Ramzan day of some properties to the children of his deceased brother i.e., defendants 7 to 9. Similarly, he was also given some property under Hiba on the same day. DW.1 further deposed that he had been paying cist to the properties given to him an defendants 7 to 9 were paying cist to the properties given to them. This witness deposed about Exs.B-1 to B-6. Similarly, he was also given some property under Hiba on the same day. DW.1 further deposed that he had been paying cist to the properties given to him an defendants 7 to 9 were paying cist to the properties given to them. This witness deposed about Exs.B-1 to B-6. D.W.1 also deposed in relation to Exs.B-7 to B-16, B-17, B-18, B-19, B-20 to B-37, B-38, B-39, B-40, B-41 , B-42, B-43, B-44 to B-64 and also B-65. In the cross-examination, this witness deposed that two or three days later to Hiba, delivery of possession was effected. In the elaborate cross-examination of this witness, several facts relating to the family had been elicited in detail. 34. D.W.2 is an Advocate who deposed about notarizing Exs.B-40 and B-66.EX.B-40 is the document which he notarized on 14-3-1980. EX.B-66 is another document which he got notarized after Ex.B-40 on the same day. No doubt, D.W.1 deposed about EX.B-40 being attested by one Baba Tajuddin and MA Subhan identified by Sk.Sardar Saheb and Baba Tajuddin and the, same procedure was followed in relation to EX.B-66 as well. This witness was cross-examined and several suggestions put this witness had been specifically denied. 35. D.W.3 deposed that D.W.1 is his paternal uncle and he also deposed in detail about the death of his grand father late Mohd.Khasim Saheb and how he had been visiting and he came to the hospital on 14-3-1980 and late Mohd. Khasim Saheb handed over the two drafts to him and asked him to go to D.W.2 and do what he instructs and what happened subsequent thereto also had been narrated in detail by D.W.3. It is needless to say that D.W.3 had been examined in relation to EX.B-44 and EX.B-66 in support of the version given by D.W.2 which had been referred to above already. 36. D.W.4, a practicing Advocate produced registered notices issued by him on behalf of defendants 2 to 11. They were marked as Exs.X-1 and X-2. The office copies and certificate of posting were marked as Exs.X-3 to X-10. The suggestions put this witness also had been denied. 37. D.W.5 deposed that the deceased late Mohd.Khasim Saheb was a partner along with him and he had attested one document EX.B-40 and this witness deposed that after attesting the document Ex.B-40, again after three days, he had visited and he recognized him. The suggestions put this witness also had been denied. 37. D.W.5 deposed that the deceased late Mohd.Khasim Saheb was a partner along with him and he had attested one document EX.B-40 and this witness deposed that after attesting the document Ex.B-40, again after three days, he had visited and he recognized him. In the cross-examination, several details had been elicited in the evidence of this witness. 38. D.W.6 is a person of the locality having lands on the North and West of the lands of late Mohd.Khasim Saheb. This witness deposed about part of his land in possession of the 2 defendant and the other part in possession of the sons of elder son.This witness deposed that he had taken on lease the land that was given to Sardar Saheb adjoining his land for a period of three years from 1975 to 1977 and the said land was partitioned between the 2 defendant and the sons of the elder son by Sardar Saheb with the help of Karanam, Munsif and he was visiting late Mohd.Khasim Saheb at Hospital. This witness further deposed that 5 or 6 days before his death, he had seen him. This witness in cross-examination deposed 'relating to certain details of division into three shares and the measurements taken and the other aspects. 39. D.W.7 deposed that in 1960, he worked in Government Hospital, Guntur as radiologist and he was the Head of Radiology Department and Professor of Radiology in Guntur Medical College. He was also the consultant Radiologist of St Joseph's Cancer Unit. He further deposed that on EX.8-40 he made an endorsement on 14-3-1980 that the patient was conscious was able to sign.D.W.7 was sent for by the Advocate and the thumb impressions were taken in his presence. He further deposed that he made a similar endorsement on EX.b-66 and he was talking then. This witness was examined, may be to prove that Exs.8-40 and 8-66 were executed by late Mohd.Khasim Saheb in a good conscious state. 40. The 7th defendant was examined as D.W.8 who had deposed in detail relating to Exs.8-67 to 8-88, 8-89, 8-90, 8-91 to 8-104,8-105 to 8-107 and 8-108 to 8-182.This witness also deposed in relation to the registered settlement deed EX.8-183. Several family affairs also had been deposed by this witness in his cross-examination. 40. The 7th defendant was examined as D.W.8 who had deposed in detail relating to Exs.8-67 to 8-88, 8-89, 8-90, 8-91 to 8-104,8-105 to 8-107 and 8-108 to 8-182.This witness also deposed in relation to the registered settlement deed EX.8-183. Several family affairs also had been deposed by this witness in his cross-examination. This witness, after he was recalled, deposed in relation to Exs.8-186, 8-189, 8-190 to 8-196 and 8-197 to 8-201. This witness was also further cross-examined after being recalled. 41. D.W.9 is an agriculturist who deposed that he knows defendants 2 to 7 and also• late Mohd.Khasim Saheb. They are also residents of the same village. This witness also deposed about the enquiry made and late Mohd.Khasim Saheb informed him'that he was giving away the land to the 7 defendant. 42. D.W.10 also is an agriculturist who deposed about the defendants 2 to 7 being in possession of these respective lands and on Ramzan day late Mohd.Khasim Saheb calling the grandsons and also the 2 defendant and declaring that he was giving away 14 acres to the grandsons and 15 acres of land to the 2 defendant. This witness was cross-examined and suggestions put this witness also had been denied.43. D.W.11 was the Munsif Magistrate in Rajam who practiced as an Advocate at Guntur from 1981 to 6-10-1985. He deposed that the village Venigandla is by the side of Pedakakani, his native village. He deposed that he knows late Mohd.Khasim Saheb, his wife and the family members. This witness also deposed that the 1 defendant executed a gift deed in favour of the 7 defendant and he was present at that time. It was scribed at the house of the 1 defendant. He also deposed that one Venkatramreddy, the then Village Munsif of Venigandla was the scribe of that document to which he (D.W.11) was one of the attestors and the other attestor was Sk.Hussain Saheb. The same is EX.B-183. At the time of Ex.B-183, the executant was in a sound and disposing state of mind. This witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff. 44. Certain comment had been made in relation to the contents of the letters and certain submissions were made that late Mohd.Khasim Saheb had been very affectionate towards the grand children and the son in whose favour he made certain dispositions by way of gifts. This witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff. 44. Certain comment had been made in relation to the contents of the letters and certain submissions were made that late Mohd.Khasim Saheb had been very affectionate towards the grand children and the son in whose favour he made certain dispositions by way of gifts. Relating to the delivery of possession, heavy reliance was placed on the cist receipts and also the oral evidence available on record. The specific stand taken by the contesting defendants is that they have been enjoying these properties by paying cist and hence it may have to be taken that the possession had been delivered to the respective by virtue of the Hibas referred to supra. The learned Judge recorded reasons in detail at paras 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 and pointed out how the ingredients to be satisfied in relation to a gift by a Mohammedan had not been satisfied. Certain admissions made in the cross-examination of D.W.1 also had been taken into consideration. Both D.W.1 and D.W.8 deposed that that they had not applied for mutation in pursuance of the alleged gifts and also pleaded ignorance whether their names had been mutated in the revenue records or not. D.W.1 also deposed that his father did not mention about the Hibas in the mortgage although Hibas in his favour are anterior to the mortgage in favour of Bank of Baroda in 1975. EX.B-65 is the registered sale deed dated 14-12-1981 in favour of the 6 defendant, alienee. This document EX.B-65 also does not refer to any Hiba at all. Simply the recitals in the said document would reflect that after the demise of the father, the property devolved on him and the same being ancestral property, the said property is being disposed of by him. Further, the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.7 also had been appreciated in elaboration and there is no clear evidence of D.W.7 that he was present when late Mohd.Khasim Saheb put his mark in his presence. D.W.5 deposed that he cannot say whether D.W.7 (Doctor) came to the place where late Mohd.Khasim Saheb was kept. Thus, in the light of the nature of evidence adduced, finding had been recorded that EX.B-40 had not been proved. D.W.5 deposed that he cannot say whether D.W.7 (Doctor) came to the place where late Mohd.Khasim Saheb was kept. Thus, in the light of the nature of evidence adduced, finding had been recorded that EX.B-40 had not been proved. No doubt, there is some evidence available on record that the said late Mohd.Khasim Saheb affixed his marks and certain reasons had been explained why the marks had been affixed. 45. The standard of proof required for satisfying the necessary ingredients of a valid gift under Mohammedan law had not been established and hence clear' findings had been recorded in relation to both Exs.B-40 and B-66 as well by the learned Judge. Apart from this aspect of the matter, it is pertinent to note that the 7 defendant examined himself as D.W.8. Though there is some additional written statement put in at a later point of time by the present appellants, a written statement was filed in duly by the 7 defendant/1 appellant and the appellants 2 and 3/defendants 8 and 9 only adopted the said written statement and they had not chosen to enter into the witness box. Certain submissions were made that inasmuch as the 1 appellantJ7 defendant who really contested having entered into the witness box amicably settled, it cannot be taken that there is any serious contest on the part of the other appellants/appellants 2 and 3/defendants 8 and 9. This contention though appears to be prima facie attractive, this Court is not inclined to accept the said stand for the reason that there may be cases where one of the contesting defendants may file a written statement in detail and when the same stand or similar stand to be taken by the other contesting defendants as well, in stead of filing a separate written statement, a Memo of adoption would be filed and when the defence is common it is also but natural that one of such parties may enter into the witness box and depose. For reasons best known, merely because the 1 appellant/7 defendant had chosen to enter into amicable settlement, by that itself it cannot be said that the other appellants cannot prosecute the Appeal effectively. On this ground, no doubt, the contentions advanced by the appellants cannot be negatived, but may have to be considered on merits. For reasons best known, merely because the 1 appellant/7 defendant had chosen to enter into amicable settlement, by that itself it cannot be said that the other appellants cannot prosecute the Appeal effectively. On this ground, no doubt, the contentions advanced by the appellants cannot be negatived, but may have to be considered on merits. As already specified above, several of the circumstances on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence would clearly reflect that late Mohd.Khasim Saheb did not make valid gifts and at any rate EX.B-40 and EX.B-66 had not been proved in accordance with Law and since the burden had not been discharged, in the natural course of events since the plaintiffs also are entitled to the relief of partition, a Preliminary Decree had been made. Hence, the findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard cannot be found fault since on a careful scrutiny of the findings this Court is satisfied that the complete oral and documentary evidence available on record had been appreciated in proper perspective by the trial Court. However, by dawn of wisdom, several of the parties had arrived at amicable settlement and compromise had been recorded by this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1950/2007 on 2-11-2007 and the order made by this Court therein already had been specified above. 46. Point No.3: The compromise arrived at by several of the parties and the order made by this Court already had been specified supra. It is needless to say that the compromise recorded by this Court may have to be given effect to and the dismissal of the Appeal would be subject to the terms of compromise which had been entered into by the parties to the compromise in A.S.M.P.No.1950/2007 in A.S.No.335/97 dated 2-11-2007. 47. Point No.4: In the light of the findings recorded above, it is needless to say that the appeal being devoid of merit, the same is liable to be dismissed. Thus, the Appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed, subject to the compromise specified above. It is needless to reiterate that the other Appeal i.e., A.S.No.371/97 already had been closed, as mentioned in para-2 supra. However, in view of the close relationship between the parties and also the amicable settlement arrived at by several of the parties, the parties to bear their own costs.