JUDGMENT : V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J. 1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 25-9-1998 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, in O.S.No.29 of 1983. The learned trial Judge tried both the suits O.S.Nos.29 of 1983 and 27 of 1988 together and a common judgment is pronounced in both the suits. Both the suits are filed for the relief of partition. O.S.No.29 of 1983 filed by the appellant/ plaintiff was decreed in part. 2. Though O.S.No.27 of 1988 is decreed in part, no appeal or no cross- objections are filed by any of the parties against the decree in O.S.No.27 of 1988. Furthermore, the plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 1983 is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.27 of 1988. The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.29 of 1983 filed the suit O.S.No.27 of 1988. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.29 of 1983 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Addanki. 3. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows: (a) The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.29 of 1983 for partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties and put him in possession of his 1/5th share in the plaint A-schedule and payments of his 1/5th share or its value in respect of plaint B-schedule properties for rendition of accounts and for costs. (b) Murarisetti Kotaiah had five sons, by name late Venkata Subbaiah (plaintiff's father), Rama Kotaiah (1st defendant), Gurunadham (2nd defendant), Venkata Rathnam (3rd defendant) and plaintiff in O.S.No.27 of 1988 Ranganadham @ Ranganayakulu (4th defendant). The joint family headed and managed by late Venkata Subbaiah (plaintiff's father and brother of defendants 1 to 4) who acquired some properties for and on behalf of the joint family. The defendants used to meet needs of family of the plaintiff from the income derived on the joint family business. (c) The 3rd defendant (plaintiff in O.S.No.27 of 1988) issued a legal notice dated 06-9-1982 for partition of properties and for separate possession stating them to be joint while himself is claiming to be separate business. The plaintiff felt that it is no longer congenial and convenient to continue any interest joint and therefore demanded for partition. 4. (c) The 3rd defendant (plaintiff in O.S.No.27 of 1988) issued a legal notice dated 06-9-1982 for partition of properties and for separate possession stating them to be joint while himself is claiming to be separate business. The plaintiff felt that it is no longer congenial and convenient to continue any interest joint and therefore demanded for partition. 4. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, which was adopted by defendants 5 to 7, are as follows: (a) It is contended that the plaintiff's father and defendants 1 to 4 had partitioned their properties in the year 1952 and they are separately living and enjoying their estate in their own right. Subsequently, the five brothers got prepared a separate partition list showing details of the properties that have fallen to the shares and all the five brothers signed in these partition lists. Since the time of said partition, the brothers are pursuing their own business. (b) It is further contended that subsequent to partition, defendants 1 and 3 purchased Item No.1 of plaint A-schedule land to an extent of Ac.0-08 cents. Subsequently, the 3rd defendant purchased another land to an extent of Ac.0-05½ cents and later sold Ac.0-02½ cents and 160 square links in two plots under a stamped agreement of sale dated 01-12-1980 to the 1st defendant and put him in possession of the same. Thus, in Survey No.1096/A1, the 1st defendant is having Ac.0-06½ cents on the east and to its west, the 3rd defendant is having the remaining extent. Item No.2 fell to the share of defendants 2 to 4 in the family partition. Item Nos.3 and 4 are separate properties of 2nd defendant which are acquired subsequent to the partition. In Item No.7, the plaintiff's father was allotted the southern Ac.0-05 cents and the 1st defendant was allotted the northern Ac.0-05 cents. Item No.8 was not in a fit condition for partition at the time of said partition and it was found not valuable then for immediate use and there are also disputes in regard to Item No.8 with neighbours. So, it was kept joint among the brothers. Item No.9 southern portion of the house and site was allotted to the share of plaintiff and the northern portion of the house and site were allotted to the share of 1st defendant. Item No.10 was purchased by the 2nd defendant subsequent to the partition. So, it was kept joint among the brothers. Item No.9 southern portion of the house and site was allotted to the share of plaintiff and the northern portion of the house and site were allotted to the share of 1st defendant. Item No.10 was purchased by the 2nd defendant subsequent to the partition. Item No.7 the house bearing No.7-76 belong to the 3rd defendant and house bearing No.7-77 belong to the 1st defendant and those houses are constructed by the defendants 1 and 3 subsequent to the partition. The shop shown as Item No.2 of plaint B-schedule belongs to the 1st defendant. Therefore, the suit suppressing the earlier partition is not maintainable. 5. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement contending that in the year 1952, their family properties are partitioned into five shares and later, to avoid disputes, lists were prepared on 05-12-1952. All the five brothers signed in the list showing the properties allotted to each sharer. From the date of partition, the five sharers have been separately enjoying without any fiction of the shares of the properties that fallen to them. Item Nos.3, 4 and 10 of the plaint schedule are his self-acquisition subsequent to the partition in the year 1952. The plaintiff and 3rd defendant colluded together. The suit suppressing earlier partition of the year 1952 is not maintainable. 6. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement contending that the father of defendants 1 to 4 died about 50 years back and the plaintiff's father managed the family till 31 years back. There was a partition about 31 years back. At the time of partition, only one item of Ac.0-20 cents in Survey No.1085/1 of Addanki was kept joint. Another item allotted to the mother was sold by all the brothers including the plaintiff's father. Except the above said items, there was nothing in common between the plaintiff and defendants. Item No.1 of plaint A-schedule was purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 27-11-1975, out of which he sold Ac.0-02¾ cents of Kothamasu Venkateswarlu under a registered sale deed dated 15-12-1975. Item No.2 in O.S.No.29 of 1983 is Item No.1 of O.S.No.27 of 1988 which fell to the share of himself and defendants 2 and 4. Item Nos.3 and 4 are purchased by the 2nd defendant subsequent to partition. Item No.2 in O.S.No.29 of 1983 is Item No.1 of O.S.No.27 of 1988 which fell to the share of himself and defendants 2 and 4. Item Nos.3 and 4 are purchased by the 2nd defendant subsequent to partition. Item No.5 belongs to his wife and the 1st defendant's wife, which was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 10-12-1970 from Aravapalli Satyanarayana. Item No.6 is purchased by the 2nd defendant. Item No.7 is ancestral property purchased in the name of plaintiff's father under a registered sale deed dated 30-7-1947 with joint family funds which was kept joint between the plaintiff's father and defendants 1 and 3, which was shown as Item No.2 in O.S.No.27 of 1988. Item No.8 was kept joint between all the sharers which is shown as Item No.3 in O.S.No.27 of 1988. Item No.9 building fell to the share of plaintiff's father and 1st defendant. Item No.10 building was purchased by the 2nd defendant after partition. Item No.11 was purchased by the 4th defendant after partition. Item No.12 was acquired by him and 1st defendant subsequent to partition. Item No.13 was purchased by the 4th defendant subsequent to partition. The plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the plaint B-schedule properties or any accounting with the business. 7. The 4th defendant filed a written statement contending that Item Nos.2, 7 and 9 are purchased by the plaintiff's father during his management. There was a partition of joint family properties among five brothers in the year 1952 and subsequently, partition lists were prepared on 05-12-1952. All the brothers signed in each list. The lists shows the shares allotted to each brother. The 4th defendant is having his 1/3rd share in Item No.2 besides defendants 2 and 3 as it was not partitioned in between himself and defendants 2 and 3, even after partition in the year 1952. He is also having his 1/5th share in Item No.8, which was left joint at the time of 1952 partition. Item No.6 was self-acquired property to an extent of Ac.0-20 cents. Out of Ac.0-20 cents, he sold Ac.0-08 cents to one Subbisetti, M. Anjamma and her own brother. He further contended that the properties mentioned in Item Nos.6, 11 and 13 are self-acquisition of the 4th defendant acquired subsequent to 1952 partition. All the articles invented by the Advocate Commissioner from his house are his exclusive properties. Out of Ac.0-20 cents, he sold Ac.0-08 cents to one Subbisetti, M. Anjamma and her own brother. He further contended that the properties mentioned in Item Nos.6, 11 and 13 are self-acquisition of the 4th defendant acquired subsequent to 1952 partition. All the articles invented by the Advocate Commissioner from his house are his exclusive properties. The suit suppressing the earlier partition of 1952 is not maintainable. 8. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether there is partition of joint family properties as pleaded by defendant ? (2) Whether some of the properties mentioned in the schedule-A in the plaint are the self-acquired properties of the respective defendants as pleaded by them ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rendition of accounts as prayed by him ? (4) Whether the suit is not properly valued and the Court fee paid is incorrect ? and (5) To what relief ? 9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.C-1 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 are examined and Exs.B-1 to B-24 are marked. 10. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court preliminarily decreed the suit in part with proportionate costs, for partition of Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule into five equal shares and put the plaintiff in separate and exclusive possession of one such share in Item No.8 of the plaint A-schedule property. However, the suit in respect of Item Nos.1 to 7 and 9 to 13 of the plaint A-schedule properties and plaint B-schedule properties and the relief of rendition of accounts is dismissed with costs. 11. Heard Sri Gandham S.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 12. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the learned trial Judge failed to observe that the plaintiff's father late Kotaiah used to do business and acquiring properties and the same was continued by all the members of the family. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge failed to see that the defendants have manipulated the records and also created the records of doing their independent business with ulterior motive and with a view to deny the share of the appellant. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge failed to see that the defendants have manipulated the records and also created the records of doing their independent business with ulterior motive and with a view to deny the share of the appellant. He would further contend that though the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition in respect of all the items, the learned trial Judge partly decreed the suit by allotting the share in Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property only. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit in part and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. 14. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit in part in O.S.No.29 of 1983 for allotting a share in Item No.8 of the plaint A-schedule property to the plaintiff and dismissing the other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff' and whether the said judgment and decree needs any interference with this Court ? and (2) To what extent ? 15. Point No.1:- Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit in part in O.S.No.29 of 1983 for allotting a share in Item No.8 of the plaint A-schedule property to the plaintiff and dismissing the other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff ? and whether the said judgment and decree needs any interference with this Court ? The case of the plaintiff is that one Murarisetti Kotaiah had five sons, namely late Venkata Subbaiah (plaintiff's father) and defendants 1 to 4 herein. The plaintiff further pleaded that the joint family headed and managed by his father by name Venkata Subbaiah who acquired some properties for and on behalf of the joint family though the individual members had their separate mess for convenience sake and they continued to hold the joint interest in the properties as acquired by them in the names of individual members of the family. The plaintiff further pleaded that major cream of the business is in the hands of defendants 3 and 4 and the 3rd defendant is doing cloth business and the 4th defendant is doing infrastructure of fancy goods in the main road, Addanki. The plaintiff further pleaded that major cream of the business is in the hands of defendants 3 and 4 and the 3rd defendant is doing cloth business and the 4th defendant is doing infrastructure of fancy goods in the main road, Addanki. He further pleaded that he is an innocent and the defendants used to meet needs of the family of plaintiff from the income derived on the joint family business and that he sought for the relief of partition in respect of plaint A-schedule property and sought 1/5th share in all the items in plaint A-schedule property and he sought for payment of 1/5th share, its value in respect of plaint B-schedule property for rendition of accounts. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit preliminarily in part by granting 1/5th share in Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property and other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are dismissed. 16. The respondents/defendants pleaded that the plaintiff's father and defendants 1 to 4 had partitioned their properties in the year 1952 and they are separately living and enjoying their estate in their own right and subsequently the five brothers got prepared a separate partition list and subsequent to the partition list, the defendants are also purchased some of the properties which are shown in the plaint schedule. 17. The appellant approached the trial Court for seeking relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. The appellant is aged about 45 years by the date of institution of the suit and residing at Addanki by doing tailoring work at where the trial Court is situated. But, for the reasons best known, he failed to appear before the trial Court and enter into the witness-box to prove the plea taken by him in the plaint. No explanation is offered by P.W.1. P.W.1 is the power of attorney holder who is permitted to represent the plaintiff. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff is the husband of his elder sister and he is the general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. As per the admissions made by P.W.1, his elder sister was given in marriage to the plaintiff and prior to the marriage, his family has nothing to do with the family of the plaintiff and the plaintiff married his sister about 35 years ago and at present, he is aged about 42 years. As per the admissions made by P.W.1, his elder sister was given in marriage to the plaintiff and prior to the marriage, his family has nothing to do with the family of the plaintiff and the plaintiff married his sister about 35 years ago and at present, he is aged about 42 years. The above admissions of P.W.1 go to show that P.W.1 is aged about 7 years as on the date of marriage of the plaintiff with his sister. Therefore, he has no personal knowledge about the suit property. Another admission made by P.W.1 is that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are living separately with separate mess. 18. The material on record goes to show that P.W.1 is acting as a power of attorney holder on behalf of the plaintiff. As admitted by P.W.1, he is not having any knowledge about the joint family properties. P.W.1 can act as a general power of attorney holder but he cannot depose as a witness in place of the plaintiff. The law is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., 2004 INSC 695 as follows: "13. Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. In our view the word "acts" employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, confines only in respect of "acts" done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term "acts" would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some "acts" in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross- examined." 19. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross- examined." 19. As stated supra, P.W.1 is not having any knowledge about the joint family properties and the suit is filed for the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property and the appellant/plaintiff is aged about 45 years by the date of institution of the suit and residing at Addanki by doing tailoring work at where the trial Court is situated but he failed to appear before that trial Court and did not enter into the witness-box to prove the plaint pleadings which were taken by him in the plaint. Law is also well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao 1999 INSC 112 : [1999]1 SCR 1168 held that "where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct". 20. In the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan 1986 (2) WLL 713, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench held that "a general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witness-box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness-box is altogether a different act. A general power of attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff". 21. Therefore, on considering the above case law, I am of the considered view that the acts used in Rule 2 of Order III of CPC do not include an act of power of attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party. 22. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court. 22. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court. He would further contend that it is always open to the parties to enter into a fresh arrangement including a decision to be again joint with respect to the properties meaning thereby that may throw the properties in the common pool once again. 23. Here in the case on hand, as stated supra, the plaintiff failed to examine himself as a witness though the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1, he pleaded ignorance about the alleged joint family properties. In fact, no evidence is produced by the plaintiff that plaint schedule properties are liable to be partitioned. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention put- forth by the learned counsel for plaintiff that it is always open to the parties to enter into a fresh arrangement including a decision to be again joint with respect to the properties. 24. The defendants pleaded that there was a partition in between the family members and after one month, the partition list was prepared under Ex.B-2. P.W.1 pleaded ignorance about Ex.B-2 in his evidence in cross- examination itself and another admission made by P.W.1 in his evidence is that he did not enquire about the partition list filed by the defendants. The defendants relied on Ex.B-2. The contention put-forth by the defendants is that there was an oral partition in between the defendants 1 to 4 and the plaintiff's father and after one month, the said oral partition list was reduced into writing and the same is proved by Ex.B-2. Ex.B-2 is confronted to P.W.1 in cross-examination by the learned counsel for defendants, P.W.1 admits that he did not enquire about the partition list filed by the defendants and he pleaded ignorance about Ex.B-2 partition list. Admittedly, no documents are filed by the appellant except exchange of notices under Exs.A-1 to A-3. Per contra, the defendants relied on the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.B-1 to B-24. 25. Admittedly, no documents are filed by the appellant except exchange of notices under Exs.A-1 to A-3. Per contra, the defendants relied on the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.B-1 to B-24. 25. As stated supra, the contention of appellant is that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and not yet partitioned and the contention put-forth by the defendants in the written statement itself is that there was a partition in the year 1952 and subsequently a partition list was prepared on 05-12-1952 under Ex.B-2. The defendants, to discharge their burden, relied on the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.B-1 to B-24. D.W.1 is the 7th defendant, D.W.2 is the 2nd defendant, D.W.3 is one Murarisetti Ranga Nayakulu, D.W.4 is the son of 3rd defendant and D.W.5 is one of the witnesses who signed on Ex.B-15 sale deed. As per the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4, there was an earlier partition in between both the family members and the same was reduced into writing subsequently under Ex.B-2 which is supported by the other documentary evidence under Ex.B-1 and Exs.B-3 to B- 24. 26. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 establishes that Item Nos.2, 7, 8 and 9 of plaint A-schedule properties are ancestral properties. It is not in dispute by the defendants that Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property was kept joint and a dispute is pending in between Bojanapalli Sreemannarayana and the defendants with regard to Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 further proves that initially Item No.1 of plaint A-schedule property was purchased by defendants 1 and 2 under an agreement of sale and subsequently the 3rd defendant executed another agreement of sale in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of his share under Ex.B-1 dated 26-10-1966 in respect of his Ac.0-05 cents in Survey No.1996/A1 out of Ac.7-69 cents. Furthermore, there is a clear recital in the said agreement of sale that subsequent to the partition among the brothers, he purchased the property covered under Ex.B-1 from Chinthalapudi Lakshmamma under Document No.1196/1990 under Ex.B-20. Ex.B-20 is the registered sale deed dated 27-10-1975. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that Item No.2 of plaint A-schedule property is a joint family property of the sons of Kotaiah. Ex.B-20 is the registered sale deed dated 27-10-1975. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that Item No.2 of plaint A-schedule property is a joint family property of the sons of Kotaiah. Exs.B-13 and B-14 clearly goes to show that Item No.2 of plaint A-schedule property fell to the share of defendants 2 to 4 under Ex.B-2 partition list and that the plaintiff sold away his share of property in Item No.2 under Exs.B-13 and B-14. Furthermore, the plaintiff sold 145 square yards of vacant site to Dhana Lakshmi, wife of P.W.1, under the original of Ex.B-13. The evidence on record further proves that Item Nos.3, 4 and 10 of plaint A-schedule properties are purchased by the 2nd defendant under Exs.B-3 to B-5. Ex.B-3 is the registered sale deed dated 06-11-1975. The evidence on record further proves that Item No.4 of plaint A-schedule property is purchased by the 2nd defendant under Ex.B-4 registered sale deed from Variganeni Lakshmaiah and Subba Rao and their sons in an extent of Ac.0-10 cents in Survey No.1023. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 further goes to show that the extent purchased under Ex.B-4 is Ac.0-10 cents but not Ac.0-05 cents and the same is absolute property of the 2nd defendant. The documentary evidence produced by the defendants goes to show that Item No.10 of plaint A-schedule property is purchased by the 2nd defendant under Ex.B-5 registered sale deed for about Ac.0-05 cents with specific boundaries. The oral evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 which corroborated by Exs.B-3 to B-5 clearly goes to show that Item Nos.3, 4 and 10 of plaint A-schedule properties are purchased by the 2nd defendant and he is the absolute owner of those properties and the same are not joint family properties. As stated supra, Item Nos.2, 7 and 9 of plaint A-schedule properties are ancestral properties and subsequently those properties are partitioned in between the brothers under an oral partition and subsequently after a month, the same is reduced into writing under Ex.B-2. 27. Furthermore, the evidence on record clearly indicates that Item No.5 of plaint A-schedule property is purchased by the wives of defendants 1 and 3 under Ex.B-19 registered sale deed dated 12-10-1979 with Stridhana property and the same is not at all belongs to joint family property. 27. Furthermore, the evidence on record clearly indicates that Item No.5 of plaint A-schedule property is purchased by the wives of defendants 1 and 3 under Ex.B-19 registered sale deed dated 12-10-1979 with Stridhana property and the same is not at all belongs to joint family property. Furthermore, no evidence is placed by the plaintiff to show that from out of the ancestral nucleus the wives of defendants 1 and 3 purchased the property covered under Ex.B-9. The appellant also failed to prove that Item Nos.3, 4 and 10 of plaint A-schedule properties were purchased by the 2nd defendant from out of ancestral nucleus. So far as Item No.6 of plaint A-schedule property is concerned, the 4th defendant purchased Item Nos.6, 11 and 13 of plaint A-schedule property under a registered sale deed subsequent to Ex.B-2 partition. Ex.B-7 is the registered sale deed in favour of the 4th defendant and Ex.B-8 is another registered sale deed in favour of the 4th defendant. Under Exs.B-7 and B-8, the 4th defendant purchased Ac.0-20 cents from Nababhushanam and his sons and since the date of purchase by the 4th defendant, he is in possession of the property in Item No.6 of plaint A-schedule property. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the defendants goes to show that Item Nos.6, 11 and 13 of plaint A-schedule properties were purchased by the 4th defendant under a registered sale deed. The evidence produced by the defendants also goes to show that the 4th defendant purchased Item No.13 of plaint A-schedule property under two sale deeds Exs.B-11 and B-12. Therefore, Item No.13 of plaint A-schedule property is exclusive property of the 4th defendant. Furthermore, the registered sale deed dated 16-7-1960 said to have been filed by the defendants goes to show that the 3rd defendant purchased Item No.12 of plaint A-schedule property vacant site under a registered sale deed and the property covered in Item No.12 of plaint A-schedule property is nothing to do with the joint family property and it is the exclusive property of the 3rd defendant. 28. 28. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that some of the properties were purchased by the defendants from out of their self earnings and they are no way connected with the joint family properties and Item Nos.2, 7 and 9 of plaint A-schedule properties are partitioned in a family partition and later the same is reduced into writing. In order to prove the same, the defendants also relied on the documentary evidence. The material on record reveals that the plaintiff sold away the property fell to his father's share in favour of Sayina Hanumaiah in which the defendants signed as a witness. On considering the entire material on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that except Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property, the other properties Item Nos.2, 7 and 9 are partitioned among the brothers in which the plaintiff's father was also given a share. Therefore, on considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that Item No.5 of plaint A-schedule property is the exclusive property of wives of defendants 1 and 3. Item Nos.3, 4 and 10 of plaint A-schedule properties are purchased by the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed, Item Nos.6 and 11 of plaint A-schedule properties are the exclusive property of 4th defendant, Item No.7 of plaint A-schedule property fell to the share of defendants 1 and 3 in a family partition and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Furthermore, the material on record reveals that when Item No.12 of plaint A-schedule property belongs to the 3rd defendant and he sold away Ac.0-95 cents under Ex.B-1 to the 1st defendant and Item No.12 of plaint A-schedule property belongs to defendants 1 and 3 and Item No.13 of plaint A-schedule property belongs to the 4th defendant. 29. The documentary evidence produced by the defendants goes to show that the parties in the suit are purchasing and selling properties independently and there is no jointness. 29. The documentary evidence produced by the defendants goes to show that the parties in the suit are purchasing and selling properties independently and there is no jointness. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that one month prior to reducing the arrangement of family partition of joint family properties in between the plaintiff's father and defendants 1 to 4, as per the family arrangement, each brother was allotted equivalent share in Item Nos.2, 7 and 9 of plaint A-schedule property and Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property is not at all partitioned and it is in the dispute in between the defendants and others. By considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any partition in respect of other items of plaint schedule properties and granted 1/5th share in Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property. With regard to the future profits are concerned, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property is not an income yielding property and it is with full of pits and a dispute is pending with regard to the said property and therefore it is kept joint. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge are perfectly correct and there is no need to interfere with the said findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly partly decreed the suit by allotting 1/5th share in Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property into five equal shares and allotted one such share to the plaintiff in Item No.8 of plaint A-schedule property and the learned trial Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the other reliefs claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 30. Point No.2:- To what extent ? Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25-9-1998 in O.S.No.29 of 1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Considering the circumstances of the case, I order each party to bear their own costs in the appeal.