JUDGMENT : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree for partition, the defendants 1 to 4 have come up with the above regular appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 to 7, 20 and 21 and Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 15 to 19. 3. The respondents 1 to 7 herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 46 of 2007 seeking partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares and the allotment of one share to plaintiffs 1 to 4 and one share to plaintiffs 5 and 6. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 15 to 19. 3. The respondents 1 to 7 herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 46 of 2007 seeking partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares and the allotment of one share to plaintiffs 1 to 4 and one share to plaintiffs 5 and 6. The plaint averments were as follows: (a) that there were five brothers by name Palika Lova Raju, Palika Tatabbai, Palika Rama Krishna, Palika Chittiabbai and Palika Nageswara Rao; (b) that all these five brothers jointly purchased the suit schedule property under a sale deed dated 16-11-1956 registered as Document No.5944/1956; (c) that out of the five brothers, four of them died and Palika Rama Krishna alone survived; (d) that after the death of each of the four brothers, their respective legal heirs came into joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; (e) that the plaint schedule property was thus a joint family property; (f) that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and 7 are the legal heirs of one of those five brothers by name Palika Lova Raju; (g) that the plaintiffs 5 and 6 are the legal heirs of the second brother by name Palika Tatabbai; (h) that the 1st defendant (Palika Ramakrishna) was the only surviving person among the five brothers who purchased the property; (i) that the defendants 2 to 5 are the wife and children of Palika Tatabbai; (j) that the defendants 6 to 10 are the wife and children of the last of those five brothers by name Palika Nageswara Rao; (k) that though the plaintiffs were demanding partition of the plaint schedule property for a long time, the 1st defendant kept on postponing the same under one pretext or the other; (l) that therefore the plaintiffs caused a legal notice dated 05-02-2007 to be issued to all defendants; (m) that the defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 6 received legal notice, but the defendants 3 and 7 to 10 evaded the same; (n) that the 1st defendant did choose to send a reply; (o) that since the property was purchased jointly by five brothers, each one of them or the branch of each one of them is entitled to ? share in the plaint schedule property and that therefore the plaintiffs 1 to 4 representing one branch is entitled to ? share in the plaint schedule property and that therefore the plaintiffs 1 to 4 representing one branch is entitled to ? share and the plaintiffs 5 and 6 representing another branch is entitled to ? share. 4. The 1st defendant, who is the sole survivor among the five brothers, filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the relationship mentioned in the plaint was correct; that the other averments contained in the plaint are false; that Palika Chittiabbai, Palika Nageswara Rao and the 1st defendant are the children of Palika Bavanna and Ramayamma; that the suit schedule property was purchased only by three brothers viz., the 1st defendant, Palika Chittiabbai and Palika Nageswara Rao; that since Palika Nageswara Rao was a minor, he was represented in the sale deed document by his mother Ramayamma; that ever since the purchase of the property, it is only those three brothers who were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property; that the total extent of the property purchased by the three brothers was Ac.1.06 cents; that out of the said property, those three brothers jointly sold 800 square yards to a third party in the year 1971 and the remaining property was partitioned by the three brothers orally in the year 1978; that in the said partition, Palika Chittiabbai whose legal heirs are defendants 2 to 5, got a vacant site of an extent of 1475 sq. yards; that the 1st defendant got his share to the north of the property allotted to Palika Chittiabbai; that Palika Nageswara Rao whose legal heirs are defendants 6 to 10 got allotted a land to the north of the property allotted to the 1st defendant; that Palika Nageswara Rao (one of the five brothers) sold the land allotted to him even during his life time to one Illa Rama Mohana Rao; that the defendants 2 to 5 who are the legal heirs of Palika Chittiabbai are in possession and enjoyment of the share allotted to their branch by constructing houses and mutually partitioning the same and paying the taxes; that when the plaintiffs started making a claim, the defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.1103 of 2007 to protect their possession; that there was no cause of action for the suit; that the valuation of the suit was correct and the Court Fee paid was also correct and that therefore the suit deserved to be dismissed. 5. The written statement filed by the 1st defendant was adopted by the defendants 3 to 5 who are the legal heirs of one of the five brothers viz., Palika Chittiabbai. The defendants 2 and 6 to 10 remained ex parte. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following four issues for consideration: 1. Whether schedule property was originally purchased by first defendant late Palika Lovaraju, late Palika Tata Abbayi, late Palika Chitti Abbayi and late Palika Nageswararao jointly on 16-11-1956? 2. Whether plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of schedule property? 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition of schedule property, if so, to what share they are entitled? 4. To what relief? 7. The 1st plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and the 2nd plaintiff was examined as P.W.2. The registration extract of the sale deed dated 16-11-1956 under which the aforesaid five brothers are said to have purchased the suit property was marked as Ex.A-1. The office copy of the legal notice issued on 05-02-2007 by the plaintiffs to the defendants together with the postal acknowledgements or the returned postal covers were marked as Exs.A-2 to A-4. The paper publication effected by the plaintiffs was marked as Ex.A-5. One sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant was marked as Ex.A-6. The registration extract of the relinquishment deed dated 03-01-1968 executed by Palika Lova Raju, Palika Tatabbai and others in favour of the 1st defendant was marked as Ex.A-7. 8. The 1st defendant examined himself as D.W.1. The 3rd defendant was examined as D.W.2. The 5th defendant was examined as D.W.3. 9. The registration extract of the sale deed dated 16-11-1956 was marked as Ex.B-1. The original of the sale deed dated 16-11-1956 was also marked as Ex.B-2. The registration extract of one sale deed dated 16-6-1971 executed by Palika Chittiabbai was filed as Ex.B-3. The registration extracts of three different sale deeds all dated 06-5-1979 executed by Palika Nageswara Rao respectively in favour of Bala Gangadhara Rao, Nagamani and Ramanjaneyulu were marked as Exs.B-4 to B-6. 10. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, the Trial Court held on issue No.1 that all the five brothers jointly purchased the suit property and that therefore each one of them or their branches is entitled to ? share in the property. 11. 10. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, the Trial Court held on issue No.1 that all the five brothers jointly purchased the suit property and that therefore each one of them or their branches is entitled to ? share in the property. 11. On issue No.2, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs and defendants were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. But the Court held that the non-payment of appropriate Court Fee cannot be a ground to dismiss the suit, since suitable directions can be given before the allotment of separate shares. 12. The argument that the failure of the plaintiffs to seek the relief of setting aside the sale deeds Exs.B-3 to B-6 made the suit non-maintainable, was rejected by the Trial Court on the basis of the decision in Kasaram Jayamma v. Jajala Lakshmamma [ 2008 (3) ALT 104 ]. The claim that the property had already been partitioned was rejected by the Trial Court for want of evidence. Hence, on issue Nos.3 and 4, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and that while the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are entitled to ? share, the plaintiffs 5 and 6 were entitled to another ? share. Accordingly, the suit was decreed and the defendants 1 to 4 are on appeal. 13. Pending appeal, the 1st appellant who was the 1st defendant died and his legal heirs have been brought on record as appellants 5 to 10. 14. The subsequent purchasers were impleaded as respondents 14 to 19. The 2nd respondent herein who was the 2nd plaintiff in the suit also died and his legal heirs are brought on record as respondents 20 and 21. 15. Respondents 15 to 19, who are subsequent purchasers and who got impleaded in the above appeal, have come up with a miscellaneous petition in A.S.M.P.No.3085 of 2013 under Order XLI Rule 27 for bringing on record additional documents. The number of documents that they want to bring on record are 19. Out of these 19 documents, 10 documents are copies of registered deeds. Three of them are affidavits, one is an Encumbrance Certificate, two documents are house tax receipts, one is housing loan passbook and another is the family tree of the Palika brothers. 16. The number of documents that they want to bring on record are 19. Out of these 19 documents, 10 documents are copies of registered deeds. Three of them are affidavits, one is an Encumbrance Certificate, two documents are house tax receipts, one is housing loan passbook and another is the family tree of the Palika brothers. 16. The third respondent in the appeal has come up with an application in A.S.M.P.No.752 of 2016 seeking permission to prosecute the appeal as a party-in-person and the same is allowed. 17. Assailing the judgment and decree of the trial Court it is contended by Mr. A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the entire suit was based upon a wrong premise as though the suit property was purchased by five brothers jointly; that there were enough indications in the sale deed dated 16.11.1956 marked as Ex.A.1/B.1/B.2 to the effect that the property was purchased only in the name of three brothers by name Palika Chittiabbai, Palika Ramakrishna and minor Palika Nageswara Rao represented by mother and guardian Ramayamma; that there were also indications to the effect that two brothers by name Palika Lovaraju and Palika Tatabbai had already separated from the family; that on the basis of the evidence, the trial Court itself came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were never in joint possession and enjoyment of the property; that coupled with the fact that there were alienations made by the three brothers, the non-enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs at all points of time showed that they never had any right or interest over the suit schedule property; that having found that the plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment and that the other three brothers had alienated portions of the property way back in the year 1994, the trial court ought to have held that the plaintiffs were ousted from the suit schedule property and the suit filed in the year 2007 was also barred by limitation; and that therefore, the Court below ought to have decreed the suit. 18. In response, it is contended by Mr. 18. In response, it is contended by Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1, 3 & 4 to 7 that the names of all the five brothers are actually mentioned in Ex.A.1/B.1/B.2-sale deed, as the Vendees; that if the sale deed was only in favour of three out of five brothers, there was no necessity or occasion for the names of all the five brothers to be mentioned in the sale deed; that the conduct of the defendants in cases of this nature is very important; that the 1st defendant, who was the only surviving person among five brothers, went to the extent of denying even the relationship of the parties, thereby showing his true colours; that there was no plea of ouster or limitation made in the written statement; that without any pleading in the written statement, that the consideration for the purchase was made from out of their personal funds, the defendants sought to lead evidence; that even admittedly one of the brothers by name Palika Nageswara Rao was a minor at the time of execution of sale deed and he was represented by his mother and guardian Ramayamma and hence those three brothers alone could have paid the consideration for the purchase and that therefore the suit was rightly decreed by the trial Court. 19. Mr. 19. Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 15 to 19, who are pendenti lite purchasers, contended that the case on hand was one of joint family property but was one of the alleged purchase of a property jointly by five brothers; that without realizing this distinction, the plaint proceeded as though the suit property was joint family property; that if partition is sought on the ground that the properties were joint family properties, the burden of proof is on the person asserting the joint family nature of the property; that the question of ouster, limitation etc., will apply if it is just a joint property but a joint family property; that the failure of the plaintiffs to implead third parties, who purchased portions of the property 45 to 50 years before the institution of the suit, was fatal to the suit; that certain words contained in the sale deed document Ex.A.1/B.1/B.2 dated 16.11.1956 such as "gaka, vyasti, migata and janam mugguriki", would make it clear that the property was purchased only in the joint names of three brothers; that the Court below virtually called the bluff in the claim of the plaintiffs to be in joint possession and that therefore the suit ought to have been dismissed. 20. From the rival contentions, we think that the following points arise for determination in the above appeal: 1. Whether the purchase of the suit schedule property under Ex.A.1/B.1/B.2 dated 16.11.1956 was by five brothers or by three brothers to the exclusion of the other two, especially in the light of the usage of the words such as "gaka (or garki), vyashti, migata and janam muggurikini" in the document? 2. Whether the property purchased under Ex.A.1/B.1/B.2 is to be taken to be a joint family property or merely a property jointly purchased by three brothers? 3. Whether in the light of the specific finding of the Court below that the plaintiffs were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property for a long time, ouster can be inferred even in the absence of pleading and whether limitation can be invoked again in the absence of pleadings? 4. Whether the non-impleadment of third parties, who purchased portions of the property way back in the years 1968 and 1972 (45 to 49 years before the institution of the suit) would be fatal to the claim for partition? 5. 4. Whether the non-impleadment of third parties, who purchased portions of the property way back in the years 1968 and 1972 (45 to 49 years before the institution of the suit) would be fatal to the claim for partition? 5. Whether the trial court was right in granting a preliminary decree for partition? Point No.1:- 21. The first point arising for consideration in the appeal is as to whether the purchase of the suit schedule property under Ex.A.1/B.1/B.2 was by five brothers or three brothers, especially in the light of the usage of the words "gaka (or garki), vyashti, migata and janam mugguriki" in the document. 22. We have framed this point specifically for consideration in view of the fact that the trial Court has completely omitted to take note of the crucial words employed in the sale deed document Ex.A.1/B.1/B.2. Unfortunately, the counsel on both sides do also appear to have drawn the attention of the trial court to the recitals contained in Ex.A.1/B.1/B.2 and the manner in which the purchasers were named and described in the sale deed. 23. As we have pointed out elsewhere, the registration extract of the sale deed dated 16.11.1956 was filed by the plaintiffs as Ex.A.1 and by the defendants as Ex.B.1. But the original sale deed dated 16.11.1956 was also filed as Ex.B.2. The first paragraph of Ex.A.1/Ex.B.1/Ex.B.2 written in Telugu, when transliterated into English alphabets, would read as follows: "Di. 16-11-1956 samvatsaramu tedi, Kakinada taluka Gaigolupadu gramam kapurasthulu, setu baljilu vyavasayadarulu Palika Bavanna Vyasti Kumarulu 1) Lovaraju, 2) Tatabbai, 1, 2 Asamilu garki migata vyasti kumarulu Chittiabbai, Ramakrishna, Nageswara Rao, minor ainanduna samrakshakulu guardian talli ramayamma janam muggurikini" 24. In order to understand what the first paragraph of the sale deed dated 16.11.1956 conveys, it may be necessary for us to provide the English meaning of each of the words contained in the first paragraph extracted above. The meaning of each of the words contained in the first paragraph extracted above would go as follows: 1) Di = date 2) Samvatsaramu = year 3) Thethi = date 4) Kakinada Taluka = Kakinada Taluq 5) Gaigolupadu gramam = Gaigolupadu village 6) Kapurastulu = residents 7) Settu Baljilu = of settubalija caste 8) vyavasayadarulu = agriculturists 9) Palika Bavanna = it is the name of the father of the five brothers. 10) Vyasti = individual/separated 11) Kumarulu = sons 12) Lovaraju, Tatabbai = Lovaraju, Tatabbai 13) 1, 2 Asamilu = 1, 2 are owners 14) Garki = To sri 15) Migata = remaining 16) Vyasti = individual/separated 17) Kumarulu = sons 18) Chittiabbai, Ramakrishna & Nageswara Rao = names of the 3 brothers 19) Minaru ainanduna = being a minor 20) samrakshakulu guardian = caretaker guardian 21) Talli Ramayamma = mother Ramayamma 22) Janam Mugguriki = for these three persons 25. It can be seen from the words contained in the first paragraph of Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2, that there are five important words which hold the key to the controversy between the parties. Interestingly, the controversy is actually two-fold. The first is about whether one particular word appearing in para-1 is "gaka" or "gariki'. The second controversy is about the meaning to be assigned to the remaining four words. In other words, the first controversy is about what a particular word is and the second controversy is about what the remaining words mean. 26. The first controversy is whether one particular word used in the first paragraph of Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2 is "gaka" or "gariki". The word "gaka" in Telugu means "except". The word "gariki" in Telugu means "To Sri". 27. While it is the contention of Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 15 to 19 that the word appearing in the document is "gaka" (meaning "except), it is the contention of Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs that the word appearing in the document is "gariki". 28. Unfortunately for us, the document Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2 is a handwritten document, authored by a document writer. The document writers of those days had the habit of writing the document in what is known as "cursive writing format". In Telugu it was known as "golusukattu ratha", meaning literally "chain format". 29. A careful look at the disputed word shows that what is actually written in the document is "garki" and "gaka". If what was written was "gaka", the problem could have been easily solved since the word "gaka" means "except". But what is actually written is "garki" which was perhaps the manner in which the word "gariki" is written in a cursive format. The word "ki" literally means "to". The word "garu" in Telugu is a respectful adage to a person, like the word "Sri". But what is actually written is "garki" which was perhaps the manner in which the word "gariki" is written in a cursive format. The word "ki" literally means "to". The word "garu" in Telugu is a respectful adage to a person, like the word "Sri". Say for instance, a person by name Subrahmanyam will always be addressed as "Subrahmanyam Garu" in Telugu. A combination of the two words "garu" and "ki" would actually produce the word "gariki". Therefore, the word "garki" appearing in the document should be taken to mean "To Sri". 30. The word "garki" is followed by the words "migatha vyashti kumarlu" in the document Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2. It is preceded by the words "1, 2 aasamilu", which obviously refer to Lova Raju and Tatabbai. The words "migatha vyashti kumarlu" obviously refer to "Chittiabbai, Rama Krishna and Nageswara Rao". 31. In other words, the word "garki" which means "To Sri" is preceded by a reference to two sons and succeeded by a reference to three sons. If this is one area of confusion in respect of the document in question, this confusion is escalated or compounded by a peculiar feature of several Indian languages of which Telugu is no exception. In English, whenever something is given or conveyed to someone, the name of the person to whom it is given or conveyed, is always written after the words "To Mr./Mrs....". But in several Indian languages including Telugu, the words "To Sri" need necessarily precede the name of the recipient, but can even succeed the name. 32. It is seen from paragraph-1 of Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2 that the words "vyashti kumarlu" is used twice, first before the names of Lova Raju and Tatabbai and next before the names of Chittiabbai, Rama Krishna and Nageswara Rao. While "vyashti kumarlu" is used twice, first to denote two brothers and next to denote three brothers, one more adjective namely "migata" is used before the words "vyashti kumarlu" appearing in the second instance. There is no dispute about the fact that this word "migatha" means "remaining". 33. There is no difficulty in understanding the usage of the word "migatha" before the words "vyashti kumarlu", used to denote the three brothers Chittiabbai, Rama Krishna and Nageswara Rao. Since the first two sons Lova Raju and Chittiabbai are already indicated as "vyashti kumarlu", the other three brothers are naturally referred to as "migatha vyashti kumarlu". 34. 33. There is no difficulty in understanding the usage of the word "migatha" before the words "vyashti kumarlu", used to denote the three brothers Chittiabbai, Rama Krishna and Nageswara Rao. Since the first two sons Lova Raju and Chittiabbai are already indicated as "vyashti kumarlu", the other three brothers are naturally referred to as "migatha vyashti kumarlu". 34. While there is no controversy about the meaning of the words "migatha" and "kumarlu", there is a controversy about the meaning of the word "vyashti". This word "vyashti" is of the Sanskrit origin. In Sanskrit, the word "vyashti" has several meanings such as (i) success, (ii) singleness, (iii) separated aggregate, (iv) individuality and (v) attainment. The antonym in Sanskrit for the word "vyashti" is "samashti". The word "samashti" (also written in Telugu as Samishti) also has several meanings such as aggregate, reaching, attainment, totality, collectiveness, collective existence etc. As a verb "samashti" in Sanskrit means "be united with". 35. Explaining the words "vyashti" and "samashti" in the philosophical sense, Swami Vivekananda said: "The aggregate of many individuals is called "samashti" (the whole) and each individual is called "vyashti" (a part). You and I - each is vyashti, society is samashti". 36. We must keep in mind the significance of the use of the word "vyashti" in two places in the first paragraph of the document. The first paragraph of the document uses the word "vyashti" for the first time while referring to Lova Raju and Chittiabbai by describing them as "Palika Bavanna vyashti kumarlu". The word "vyashti" is used for a second time while referring to the remaining three sons by describing them as "migatha vyashti kumarlu". 37. If the purchase was by or for and on behalf of all the five brothers, all the five brothers could have been described simply by using either of the following words viz., (i) Palika Bavanna kumarlu or (ii) Palika Bavanna kumarlu Lova Raju, Tatabbai and migatha kumarlu Chittiabbai, Rama Krishna and Nageswara Rao. 38. If the absence of the word "vyashti" would provide the possibility of interpretation to the effect that the purchase was by all the five brothers, the presence of the word "vyashti" in two places in the first paragraph of the document, cannot also lead to the very same interpretation. 39. 38. If the absence of the word "vyashti" would provide the possibility of interpretation to the effect that the purchase was by all the five brothers, the presence of the word "vyashti" in two places in the first paragraph of the document, cannot also lead to the very same interpretation. 39. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the word "vyashti" appearing in the first place to identify the first two sons and appearing in the second place to refer to the remaining three sons, should be understood to mean "separated aggregate". We have already pointed out that the word "vyashti" in Sanskrit has several meanings such as individual, individuality, attainment, singleness and separated aggregate. The choice of one of the several meanings to be assigned to a word would always depend upon the context. In the context in which the word "vyashti" is used in two places in the first paragraph of Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2, first to denote two sons and then to denote the remaining three sons would show that it was used to indicate "separated individuals". 40. Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, contended that the crucial question to be posed is as to why the names of all the five brothers should be mentioned in the document if the intention was to have the purchase only in the names of three brothers. If this question has no answer, it is equally so with reference to another question as to why the word "vyashti" should be used in two places, if all of them were united or lived as one unit. 41. As a matter of fact, the second question is actually a question but an answer to the question posed by Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel. It is perhaps only for the purpose of making things clear that Palika Bavanna had five sons and that out of them two sons already separated, paving way for the purchase to be made in favour of the remaining three sons (migatha vyashti kumarlu) that the names of all the five brothers found a place in the document. 42. If the words "kumarlu" and "vyashti kumarlu" are to have the same meaning, the same logic should have been found in the document even while describing the vendors. The vendors under Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2 are (i) Venkata Bhavannarayana and (ii) Bhaskara Gopala Krishna Murthy. 42. If the words "kumarlu" and "vyashti kumarlu" are to have the same meaning, the same logic should have been found in the document even while describing the vendors. The vendors under Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2 are (i) Venkata Bhavannarayana and (ii) Bhaskara Gopala Krishna Murthy. Both are described to be the sons of Kommireddi Surya Narayana Murthy Naidu. But both these persons are described as Kommireddi Surya Narayana Murthy Naidu's vyashti kumarlu. They are described as "Kommireddi Surya Narayana Murthy Naidu's samishti kumarlu". It would be useful to provide the transliteration of the second paragraph of Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2 as follows: "Kakinada kapurasthulu telagalu - vasathidarlu Kommireddi Surya Narayana Murthy Naidu gari samishti kumarlu Venkata Bhavannarayana, Bhaskara Gopala Krishna Murthy wrayinchi ichchinadi". 43. The very usage of the word "samishti kumarlu" while describing the vendors, in contra distinction to the description given to two sets of sons by describing the first two as "vyashti kumarlu" and describing the remaining three as "migatha vyashti kumarlu" would show that the word "vyashti" was employed to identify separate individuals. 44. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the purchase was made only in the names of three brothers viz., Chittiabbai, Rama Krishna and Nageswara Rao. The names of the other two brothers are indicated in the document as separated sons, in order to avoid any misgivings in future. But what was provided in the document for the purpose of avoiding any misgivings in future, itself has given rise to a misgiving, proving the famous quote in a Hollywood feature film titled "The International" which goes as follows: "Many times you may meet your destiny on the road you took to avoid it". Unfortunately, the Trial Court did even reproduce the transliteration of the first two paragraphs of Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2 and provide an analysis of the important words used therein, before coming to the conclusion that the property was purchased by all the five brothers together. 45. Our above interpretation does merely stem out of - (i) the use of the word "vyashti" in two places while describing the purchasers and (ii) the use of the word "samishti" while describing the two vendors. Our interpretation is also fortified by the use of the words "janam muggurikini" meaning "to the three persons” that follow the description of the three brothers Chittiabbai, Rama Krishna and Nageswara Rao. Our interpretation is also fortified by the use of the words "janam muggurikini" meaning "to the three persons” that follow the description of the three brothers Chittiabbai, Rama Krishna and Nageswara Rao. If the purchase was intended to be in favour of five brothers, the scribe could have used the words "janam aidugurikinni". 46. Therefore, our conclusion on point No.1 arising for determination in the appeal is that the purchase of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2 was only by three brothers viz., (i) Chittiabbai, (ii) Rama Krishna and (iii) Nageswara Rao, out of whom Nageswara Rao being a minor was represented by mother and guardian Ramayamma. Point No.2:- 47. The second point arising for determination is as to whether the property purchased under Ex.A-1/B-1/B-2 is to be taken to be a joint family property or merely a property jointly purchased by a few brothers. 48. The answer to this question is far too difficult to find out. The very case of the plaintiffs as seen from para-V of the plaint was that the first defendant, late Palika Lova Raju, late Palika Tatabbai, late Palika Chittiabbai and late Palika Nageswara Rao jointly purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed bearing No.5944/1956, dated 16-11-1956. But towards the end of para-V of the plaint, it was claimed that the plaint schedule property was the joint family property. 49. As rightly contended by Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 15 to 19, every property purchased jointly by the brothers need necessarily become a joint family property. 50. In any case, the very pleading of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property was a joint family property arose out of a misconception that the property was purchased in the names of five brothers. In other words, the case of the plaintiffs was that the property was purchased jointly by five brothers and thus it became a joint family property. It was their case in the plaint that the plaint schedule property was purchased from out of joint family funds or joint family nucleus or by the father in the names of three sons out of the income from joint family properties. Therefore, once it is found that the purchase was made only by three brothers, specifically describing the other two brothers as separated sons, the question of the property being a joint family property does arise. Therefore, once it is found that the purchase was made only by three brothers, specifically describing the other two brothers as separated sons, the question of the property being a joint family property does arise. 51. Even in the Affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination, P.W.1 claimed that her father Lova Raju purchased the plaint schedule property along with his four brothers and that therefore the plaintiff had a share in the property. It was her case that the property was bought out of ancestral nucleus or the income out of ancestral properties etc. Therefore, our answer to point No.2 for determination is that the suit schedule property was a joint family property, but a property purchased jointly by three brothers. Hence, the two excluded brothers and their children cannot claim the property to be a joint family property in the absence of any pleading and proof to the effect that there were other joint family properties from out of the nucleus of which or from out of the income from which, the suit schedule property was purchased. Point Nos. 3 and 4:- 52. Point No.3 arising for determination is as to whether in the light of the specific finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property for a long time, ouster can be inferred even in the absence of a pleading and whether limitation can be invoked in the absence of pleadings. The fourth point arising for determination is as to whether the non-impleadment of the third parties who purchased portions of the suit schedule property way back in the years 1968 and 1972 would be fatal to the claim for partition. 53. We do think that we need to find an answer to point Nos.3 and 4 for determination, in the light of our finding on point Nos.1 and 2. But it must be pointed out that though ouster and limitation were pleaded, they can always be raised at any point of time, if the evidence available on record was sufficient to reach a conclusion. 54. In any case, the finding that the plaintiffs were in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, appears to have been accepted by the plaintiffs. This is why the plaintiffs appear to have paid the balance of Court Fee. Actually the plaintiffs originally paid a fixed Court Fee of Rs. 54. In any case, the finding that the plaintiffs were in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, appears to have been accepted by the plaintiffs. This is why the plaintiffs appear to have paid the balance of Court Fee. Actually the plaintiffs originally paid a fixed Court Fee of Rs. 200/- on the basis of their claim that they were in joint possession and enjoyment. But subsequently, they have paid the deficit Court Fee, totaling to a sum of Rs. 51,526/- under Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. 55. But the plaintiffs were either aware or did raise a little finger about the manner in which the suit schedule property was always treated by the other three brothers as their own and alienations made continuously from the year 1968. 56. Anyway the moment the foundation for the case of the plaintiffs is removed, the edifice built upon the same should also fall. Therefore, in view of our answer to point No.1, there is no need to answer point Nos.3 and 4. Point No.5:- 57. The last point arising for determination is as to whether the Trial Court was right in granting a decree for partition. 58. In the light of our finding on point Nos.1 and 2, it follows as a corollary that the Trial Court was right in granting a decree for partition. But it appears that the Trial Court was swayed by the fact that the eldest surviving member of the family viz., Palika Rama Krishna, who was the first defendant and who examined himself as D.W.1, chose to make a blatant lie in the witness-box without batting an eyelid. He stated in the witness-box that there were only three sons to his father Palika Bavanna and that Palika Lova Raju and Palika Tatabbai were his brothers. 59. There is no doubt that what was stated by the first defendant in the witness-box, coming as it does from the eldest surviving member of the family, was a blatant lie which required all condemnation. But the plaintiffs have to stand or fall on the strength of their own pleadings and evidence and on the evil designs of the defendants. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court erred in granting a decree for partition. 60. But the plaintiffs have to stand or fall on the strength of their own pleadings and evidence and on the evil designs of the defendants. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court erred in granting a decree for partition. 60. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside. But in view of the relationship between the parties and in view of the blatant lie advanced by the first defendant in the witness-box, who was the first appellant in the above appeal, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. 61. A.S.M.P. No. 752 of 2016 filed by the 3rd respondent to prosecute the appeal as Party-in-person is allowed. 62. A.S.M.P. No. 3085 of 2013 filed by the newly impleaded respondents 15 to 19 under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC is dismissed, as there is no necessity to consider those documents in view of our finding on point No.1. 63. The other miscellaneous applications, if any, are closed.