JUDGMENT : K.SUJANA, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.04.2002 passed in O.S.No.90 of 1994 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The plaintiff filed the suit for granting preliminary decree declaring that he is entitled to 1/5 th share in the suit schedule properties and for final decree for partition of his 1/5th share. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein afterreferred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 2. Plaintiff, along with defendant Nos.1, 2 to 4, are the children of one K. Narsaiah, while D5 is his wife, defendant No.10 and defendant No.11 are the wife and son of defendant No.1, respectively. Defendant Nos.6 to 9 were added as third parties due to their involvement in property transactions. The plaintiff alleged that he, defendant Nos.1 to 5, and their father were co-parceners in a Joint Hindu Family, and that K. Narsaiah died intestate on 07.11.1992, leaving behind ‘A, B, and C’ schedule properties, which were acquired from joint family funds. During his lifetime, K. Narsaiah worked at AjamJahi Mills, took voluntary retirement, and later engaged in kirana and firewood businesses with the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 is the sister and she was married and that she was a proforma party to the suit. After closure of the business, Narsaiah was eking his livelihood by doing cement business until his death. All the schedule properties were acquired from and out of the joint family funds. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1 mis-managed joint family properties and acquired assets in the names of defendant Nos.10 and 11 using joint family funds. A legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 18.07.1989 seeking partition, but defendant No.1 denied the rights of plaintiff. Thereafter the matter was referred to elders of Padmashali Sangam, they intervened and advised partition, but defendant No.1 refused to comply. In those panchayats, defendant No.1 admitted the ownership of joint family in schedule A & B items apart from other properties but evaded partition of A, B and C schedule properties. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No.1 attempted to sell ‘B’ schedule properties to defendant Nos.6 to9. As such, they were also added as parties to the suit. 3. In those panchayats, defendant No.1 admitted the ownership of joint family in schedule A & B items apart from other properties but evaded partition of A, B and C schedule properties. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No.1 attempted to sell ‘B’ schedule properties to defendant Nos.6 to9. As such, they were also added as parties to the suit. 3. Defendant Nos.1 to 5, defendant No.8, 10 appeared through their counsel, while defendant Nos.6 and 7 remained ex parte, and suit against defendant Nos.9 and 11 was dismissed for default. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 10 filed written statement. In their written statements, defendant Nos1 to 5 and 10 contended that K. Narsaiah had separated the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in 1984, and that the ‘A’ Schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of K.Narsaiah. They claimed that plaintiff and defendant No.1 were doing separate businesses and defendant No.1 acquired plots independently after 1984. They also contended that in the legal notice issued on 18.07.1999, to the defendant No.1 and K.Narsaiah, there is no mention of Item Nos.2 to 4 of ‘B’ schedule properties and in the reply notice, K.Narsaiah, categorically stated that the immovable properties are his self-acquired properties and that plaintiff and defendant No.1 have no share in them. On 21.06.1993, the plaintiff again issued legal notice to defendant No.1 for which he gave reply. They further contended that after the death of Narsaiah, the caste elders held panchayat and as per their decision partition took place and accordingly plaintiff has shown the property in ‘A’ schedule. Not satisfied with the said partition, plaintiff raised disputes as such, defendant No.5 made final settlement through an agreement of partition and as per the valuation, Rs.20,000/- was allotted to the share of defendant No.5, Rs.8000/- to defendant No.4 under agreement dated 13.03.1994 and the difference of share value of Rs.11,311/- was paid by defendant No.1 to plaintiff on 02.04.1994 under receipt attested by notary. With regard to ‘B’ schedule properties they stated that item No.1 (a) was allotted to defendant No.8 and item No.1(b) was allotted to defendant No.9 and item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule is not the property of joint family and item No.3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule are purchased by defendant No.10 with her Sthridhan and sold the same to one V.Kedari, who inturn sold the same to third party. 4. 4. The defendant No.8 in his written statement stated that plot 1(a) was allotted to him by Kasibugga Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., through allotment certificate dated 09.08.1989 and that plaintiff or defendants 1 to 5 have no right in it. 5. The plaintiff further submitted that he had recently discovered certain documents which revealed that defendant no.1 had acquired substantial properties in his own name, as well as in the names of his family members and relatives, in Survey Nos. 106 and 107 and was also engaged in real estate business by acquiring Ac.5.20 guntas in Survey Nos. 228, 226, 215, and 217 from P. Prakasam and P. Rukkaiah, along with other partners, using joint family funds. The plaintiff claimed that D1 earned considerable profits from these transactions, which were liable for partition. The plaintiff also submitted that it came to his notice that defendant No.2 was doing business under the name and style of "Shilpa Kangan Hall," which had been started by their father using joint family funds in the name of defendant No.2. He further stated that, at the time of their father's death, there was cash, gold, and silver ornaments acquired from joint family business profits, which were in the custody of defendant Nos.1 and 5. Therefore, the plaintiff contended that the properties listed in Schedule "C" were also liable for partition. 6. In response to the above contention, defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 8 filed an additional written statement dated 13.03.2000 denying that defendant No.1 owned any properties in Survey Nos. 228, 226, 215, and 217. They stated that defendant No.1’s efforts to engage in real estate business were unsuccessful, as the proposed land was subject to the Urban Ceiling Act and that the plot purchased under Document No. 846/83 dated 23.09.1983 was cancelled as it was not available on site. The land in Survey Nos.228, 226, 215, and 217 remained in the possession of P. Prakasam and P. Rukkaiah, and D1 had no connection with it.Defendant No.1 stated that he had purchased items 1 to 3 of Schedule "C" under Document Nos.1426/90, 1425/90 and 1424/90 dated 20.12.1999 from his personal earnings, and that these properties had no relation to the joint family. The defendants further stated that "Shilpa Kangan Hall" was started by defendant No.2 using his own investment and with financial assistance from his father-in-law. The defendants further stated that "Shilpa Kangan Hall" was started by defendant No.2 using his own investment and with financial assistance from his father-in-law. Therefore, they claimed that the business was not liable for partition. An additional written statement was filed on 10.10.2000, wherein the defendants stated that items 5, 6 and 7 of Schedule "C" belonged to Medaram Jaganadham, the husband of their sister M. Pushpaleela (defendant No.4). The said Jaganadham had gifted item no. 7 to his daughter Ramadevi at the time of her marriage on 17.12.1999, and the gift was registered on 31.08.2000. As such, there were no business profits, gold ornaments, or cash left by K. Narsaiah that were liable for partition. 7. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial Court framed six issues at the first instance and three additional issues are framed after filing additional pleadings and written statements. On behalf of plaintiff Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.67 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, Dws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.14 were marked. Basing on the evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit only to the extent of 1/6 th share in item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule and item No.1(1) of ‘C’ schedule and for the remaining schedule properties, the suit was dismissed.Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. Heard Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 11 and Smt P.Sarada, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.12. 9. The contention of the appellant herein is that the trial Court erred in not granting the relief of 1/5 th share in schedule ‘A, B and C’ schedule properties as those properties were acquired and developed out of joint family funds and trial Court gave much weightage to the notice of appellant dated 18.07.1989 to which the defendant No.1 did not give reply and non-inclusive of ‘B’ schedule property in the said notice was only lack of information with the plaintiff. As such, it is no way helpful to the defendants. The trial Court also gave much importance to the decision of caste elders on 18.02.1994 and 13.03.1993 and receipt of difference amount of Rs.11,311/- ignoring the fact that the amount received out of investment made in respect of House no.11-15-40/C which is in possession of defendant No.1. As such, it is no way helpful to the defendants. The trial Court also gave much importance to the decision of caste elders on 18.02.1994 and 13.03.1993 and receipt of difference amount of Rs.11,311/- ignoring the fact that the amount received out of investment made in respect of House no.11-15-40/C which is in possession of defendant No.1. He further contended that the trial Court erred in ignoring Ex.B.9 as the defendant No.1 got separated from the joint family and agreed to live separately without any property and now squats on ‘A’ schedule property. The trial Court also gave much weightage to Ex.A.40 which is the receipt in the name of Anitha Kirana Shop being run by the plaintiff.The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on proper perspective. As such, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of trial Court and allow this appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court and there are no merits in this appeal. The trial Court discussed all the issues at length with all the documentary evidence. Therefore, no interference is required and requested this Court to dismiss this appeal. 11. Basing on the above submissions, now the points to be determined are : 1. Whether the plaintiff is able to prove that all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties, if so, he is entitled for partition of all the properties ? 2. Whether there was any earlier partition on 18.02.1994 as alleged by defendant nos.1 to 5 and 10 ? 3. Whether the final settlement through an agreement of partition dated 13.03.1994 is valid and binding on the plaintiff ? 4. Whether item No.1 of ‘B’ schedule property belongs to defendant No.8 ? 5. Whether item Nos.3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule are exclusive property of defendant No.10 available for partition ? 6. Whether the ‘C’ schedule properties are available for partition ? 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? POINT NOs.1 TO 3 : 12. The contention of plaintiff in the trial Court is that all the properties are acquired by their father K.Narsaiah, defendant No.1 and himself from and out of the profits received in their business, whereas the contention of defendants is that all the properties are self-acquired properties of late K.Narsaiah. POINT NOs.1 TO 3 : 12. The contention of plaintiff in the trial Court is that all the properties are acquired by their father K.Narsaiah, defendant No.1 and himself from and out of the profits received in their business, whereas the contention of defendants is that all the properties are self-acquired properties of late K.Narsaiah. According to the plaintiff, himself, Narsaiah and defendant No.1 maintained kirana and firewood business, whereas, the defendant No.1 contention is that himself and plaintiff separated from the joint family in the year 1984 itself. According to defendant No.1 as loss sustained in the business and as per the decision of elders, he agreed to live separately without any property, whereas Ex.B.9 was not acted upon as K.Narsaiah, plaintiff and defendant No.1 did business in the year 1984 and disputes arose between them, they approached elders for settlement of accounts. At that time, plaintiff and defendant No.1 deposited Rs.500/- with the elders, thereafter, the elders perused the accounts produced by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and found a sum of Rs.41,694/- was due by them jointly. A sum of Rs.34,054.20ps, was stock in trade and a sum of Rs.7639.45 ps was due by the joint family. The elders have decided that an amount of Rs.21,625/- is in excess with plaintiff and he has to pay Rs.1,250/- till the debt of K.Narsaiah is discharged. It was also agreed that plaintiff shall pay Rs.100/- per month towards maintenance of K.Narsaiah. It was also decided that defendant No.1 shall receive Rs.1250/- from his father and see that debts are discharged and he should also pay Rs.100/- for his father’s maintenance and that Narsaiah should not borrow any amount and give to his sons and from that time, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are liable for the profits and losses of Kirana and Beedi businesses respectively and from that day onwards, they are living separately. 13. In cross-examination, Pw.1 admitted that in 1984 as the disputes arose between his father and defendant No.1, he has shown the accounts of Beedi business at the instance of his father and in the panchayat, elders decided those disputes, but he do not know the decision. 13. In cross-examination, Pw.1 admitted that in 1984 as the disputes arose between his father and defendant No.1, he has shown the accounts of Beedi business at the instance of his father and in the panchayat, elders decided those disputes, but he do not know the decision. He also admitted that he signed on that decision and also signed on the agreement of arbitration, he also signed on Ekrarnama dated 17.06.1984 and decision dated 20.07.1984 but he do not know their contents and he did not sign on the document dated 14.04.1980 shown to him. He also admitted that on 18.02.1994 there was a panchayat and elders passed a decision in which, himself, and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 signed and basing on the said decision his mother wrote a partition deed and obtained their signatures. As per the said deed, a portion of old house was allotted to him and house in which defendant No.1 is running Kirana shop fell to his share and after ascertaining valuation of the said house, elders made him to agree and got paid Rs.11,311/- from defendant No.1 to plaintiff. Pw.1 also admitted that item Nos.3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule are in the name of defendant No.10 and he denied that the husband of defendant No.4 purchased three house plots at Enumamula with his retirement benefits and obtained registered sale deed in his favour. In the said registered sale deed it is recited that Jagannadham purchased those plots and also denied that defendant No.1 and other brothers have no right in those three plots. The admission of plaintiff with regard to item Nos.3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule shows that the said properties are defendant No.10 properties who is the wife of defendant No.1 and it is not in the name of defendant No.1. Further, three plots were purchased by the husband of defendant No.4 and they are not the joint family properties. Though, he contended that two plots were sold to defendant Nos.8 and 9 by the father and defendant No.1, no document is filed by the plaintiff to prove the same. Item Nos.3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule properties are sold to V.Kedari, who sold the same to K. Suguna who in turn sold the same to third parties, as such no property is available for partition. Item Nos.3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule properties are sold to V.Kedari, who sold the same to K. Suguna who in turn sold the same to third parties, as such no property is available for partition. The evidence on record shows that the disputes arose between the parties and the same was referred to elders under arbitration agreement on 18.12.1993 and elders passed decision under Ex.B.10 valuing item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule property in which defendant No.1 is running Kirana shop, at Rs.2,76,700/- and item No.2 at Rs.1,12,706/-, item No.3 at Rs.98,060/-, item No.4 at Rs.1,32,829/-. In item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule, defendant No.1 is residing, in item No.2 of ‘A’ schedule, plaintiff is residing, in item No.3, defendant No.2 is residing and in item No.4, defendant No.3 is residing and in the said decision all the elders have stated that 10 Sq yards of vacant site appurtenant to item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule house has to be given to defendant No.1 towards Jyesta Bagham as he is the elder son and as defendant No.1 incurred Rs.34,000/- when his father sustained fracture and also for the death obsequies, elders directed the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 to share the same @ Rs.11,333/- each. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 are also due some amount to defendant No.1. Thus, totally the plaintiff and defendant No.2 are due an amount of Rs.12,133/- each to defendant No.1, elders also directed the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 3 that after partitioning the properties equally among themselves, out of the excess amount they have to pay Rs.8000/- to their sister and Rs.20,000/- to their mother and if any amount and gold given to defendant No.5 remains after her death, the same has to be partitioned among all brothers and defendant No.5 has to reside with defendant No.3. In clause 9 of Ex.B.10 it is mentioned that if defendant No.1 has acquired any landed property or cash in bank prior to 26.01.1984 without disclosing to his brothers and at later point of time it comes to light he shall have no right over those properties, but his three brothers would have right to partition equally. In clause ‘10’ of Ex.B.10 the elders directed the brothers to express whether any one of them are willing to purchase item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule within 15 days. 14. In clause ‘10’ of Ex.B.10 the elders directed the brothers to express whether any one of them are willing to purchase item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule within 15 days. 14. Pw.2 is one of the elder to Ex.B.10 and Dw.4 who was the Surpanch was also elder to Ex.B.10. On 07.03.1984 it was endorsed that none of the brothers came forward to purchase, then they prepared a calculation memo how the brothers have to partition equally. As such, they partitioned under Ex.B.11 dated 13.03.1994 in which the elders and Defendant No.5 gave item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule to defendant No.1 directing him to pay excess amount as decided by them in Ex.B.10 and they also gave remaining houses as stated in Ex.B.10. As per Ex.B.10, defendant No.1 has to pay Rs.22,444/- to plaintiff and plaintiff has to pay Rs.11,333/- to defendant No.1 as per Ex.B.10 towards expenses incurred by him for his father’s treatment and obsequies. Hence, defendant No.1 was liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,311/- to the plaintiff and Rs.25,357/- to defendant No.2, and Rs.3,321/- to defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- obtained by him under Freedom fighters scheme to defendant No.3 and some household articles were given to defendant No.1 and plaintiff. Though plaintiff denied the same stating that a panchayat was held it was not fruitful and failed. According to him the house allotted to defendant No.1 is worth of Rs.30 lakhs whereas, Ex.B.10 and B.11 shows as Rs.2,67,000/-. Though opportunity was given to all the brothers to purchase the same, none of them come forward, as such, the elders partitioned as per Ex.B.11. The main contention of appellant herein is that the trial Court erred in giving weightage to Exs.B.10 and B.11 though they are unregistered documents. The settled principle of law is that even though the family settlement is unregistered document, if it is acted upon it can be considered. In the present case also, admission of plaintiff as Pw.2 shows that settlement between the parties was acted upon, it can be proved that division of property took place. As such, it can be held that there is prior partition with regard to ‘A’ schedule property under Exs.B.10 and B.11. As such there is no illegality in deciding the issue by the trial Court. Hence, point Nos.1 to 3 are answered. POINT No.4 : 15. As such, it can be held that there is prior partition with regard to ‘A’ schedule property under Exs.B.10 and B.11. As such there is no illegality in deciding the issue by the trial Court. Hence, point Nos.1 to 3 are answered. POINT No.4 : 15. With regard to item No.1 of ‘B’ schedule property, the contention of plaintiff is that it was allotted to K.Narsaiah and defendant No.1 by Kasibugga Housing Society and they sold the same to defendant Nos.8 and 9. In the present case, suit against defendant No.9 is dismissed for default. Defendant No.8 was examined as Dw.6, wherein he stated that the said plot was allotted to him by Kashibugga Housing Society in which he was a member. He filed the document under Ex.B.12 showing payment of Rs.100/- as share capital and Rs.10/- towards admission fee under Ex.B.13 and paid Rs.16,812/- towards cost of the plot. He also filed Ex.B.14 plot allotted certificate and according to him, Society delivered possession of plot to him. He also stated that defendant No.1 and K.Narsaiah, have no right over the said plot. 16. To prove his contention, plaintiff relied on Ex.A.16 two receipts issued by Kashibugga Housing Society to defendant No.1 and K.Narsaiah with admissions Nos.60 and 59. Exs.A.43 and 44 Nil payment vouchers signed by defendant No.1 and Narsaiah under which they received Rs.400/- each from the Secretary, Kashibugga Housing Society for the refund of part of the amount paid by them towards the initial deposit to acquire land of Sri Ahmed Hussain. To prove that item No.1 of ‘B’ schedule house plot sold by Narsaiah and Defendant No.1 no document was filed by the plaintiff. According to him, he verified the society register and found his father and defendant No.1 sold two plots to defendant Nos.8 and 9, but there is no document filed by the plaintiff to prove the same. On the other hand, defendant No.8 filed Exs.B.12 to B.14 to show that he paid the amount to society and he is a member of the society and the said property was allotted to him and for the other party the suit was already dismissed as no process was paid to defendant No.9. Therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court in deciding this issue that plaintiff has no right in item No.1 of ‘B’ schedule property. POINT NO.5 : 17. Therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court in deciding this issue that plaintiff has no right in item No.1 of ‘B’ schedule property. POINT NO.5 : 17. The contention of plaintiff is that defendant No.1 purchased item Nos.3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule in the name of his wife-defendant No.10 with joint family funds. As such they are liable for partition. The contention of defendant No.10 is that it was purchased by her through her stridhana. She was examined as Dw.7 and her evidence is that she was having two plots at Shayampet purchased from one V.Kedari. One of the plot was purchased about 20 years ago and another plot was purchased about 15 years ago. According to her at the time of her marriage her parents gave six tulas of gold and she purchased two plots by selling the same and later due to financial obligations, she again approached her father and expressed her willingness to sell those two plots and again sold the said plots to Kedari about 10 years back. Therefore, there is no such property available as on today. The plaintiff filed Ex.A.11 certified copy of registered sale deed dated 07.08.1982 under which defendant No.10 purchased 597 Sq yards of land in Sy.No.17 of Shayampet village for Rs.5,870/-. Sri V. Kedari sold item No.4 of ‘B’ schedule property to one K.Suguna and also sold item No.3 of ‘B’ schedule property to an extent of 689 Sq yards in Sy.No.17 of Shayampet village. The boundaries in Ex.A.11 and the land sold under Ex.A.30 are one and the same. According to the plaintiff as disputes arose between the parties, defendant No.1 clandestinely sold properties through V.Kedari, whereas the contention of Dw.1 is that his father-in-law purchased the said properties in the name of his wife and his wife sold the same to V.Kedari who in turn sold the same to third parties. When plaintiff is claiming that those properties are purchased with the joint family funds by defendant No.1, he has to prove the same, but no such document is filed by the plaintiff to prove the same. Further the properties were sold to third party K.Suguna who is not a party to the suit. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim those properties as joint family properties.Accordingly, this point is answered. POINT NOs.6 & 7 : 18. Further the properties were sold to third party K.Suguna who is not a party to the suit. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim those properties as joint family properties.Accordingly, this point is answered. POINT NOs.6 & 7 : 18. The remaining properties to be decided are that item No.2 of ‘B and C’ schedule properties. Item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule property was purchased by defendant No.1 in favour of his minor son defendant No.11 under Ex.A.28. The suit against defendant No.11 is dismissed for default, but defendant No.1 who purchased this item in favour of his minor son is contesting the suit, as such, there is no adverse interest between defendant Nos.1 and 11. Ex.A.28 is an unregistered deed dated 23.09.1983 and admitted by defendant No.1 that the land was covered under Urban Land Ceiling Act, so it was cancelled as such the same is not available for partition. But defendant No.1 failed to file any document to show that it was cancelled. The admission of defendant No.1 that during the life time of his father, he entered into sale in the name of his son, but later it was found that the vendor delivered the plot which was covered under Urban land ceiling which itself shows that there is no denial that it was not purchased from the joint family properties. Therefore, it can be said that the said property was purchased by defendant No.1 in the name of his son from the joint family funds. 19. Further, the ‘C’ schedule properties are in Sy.No.215 and 217 to an extent of 240.66 Sq yards and 313.85 sq yards were purchased by defendant No.1. Thus, sale took place prior to 26.01.1984 and Dw.1 admitted that he purchased the property under Ex.A.12 and later stated that it was purchased by his father and it was lost under urban land ceiling, then they obtained cancellation deed, but no such cancellation deed was filed before the trial Court. When Dw.1 admitted purchase of said property with the joint family funds, if it is cancelled, the burden lies on defendant No.1 to file the said document to prove that it is not available for partition. When no such document is filed, it can be concluded that item No.1 of ‘C’ schedule property is purchased by K. Narsaiah and it is available for partition. 20. Further Item No.2 of ‘C’ schedule property is 313.85 sq. When no such document is filed, it can be concluded that item No.1 of ‘C’ schedule property is purchased by K. Narsaiah and it is available for partition. 20. Further Item No.2 of ‘C’ schedule property is 313.85 sq. yards in Sy.No.107 purchased by plaintiff under document dated 20.12.1990 in which defendant No.1 purchased the same from N.Venkatapapi Reddy (Pw.4) and item No.3 of ‘C’ schedule purchased by defendant No.1 from Pw.4 under Ex.A.15 and these documents are subsequent to 26.01.1984 i.e., after partition of the properties under ‘A’ schedule. The main argument of the appellant/plaintiff is that there is a clause in earlier agreement under clause 9 that if any properties purchased by defendant No.1 come to light afterwards, they are to be partitioned between plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3. The said agreement is of the year 1984 and these properties were purchased in the year 1990. Though plaintiff contends that these properties were purchased from the joint family funds, no evidence is adduced to prove the same. All these sale deeds are after 1984 as such, plaintiff cannot claim those properties as joint family properties. Item Nos.5, 6 and 7 of ‘C’ schedule properties i.e., house plots to an extent of 314.95, 519.59 and 283.33 Sq yards in Sy.Nos.107 and 106 are in the name of one M.Jaganadham, the husband of defendant No.4. Though plaintiff claimed those properties as joint family properties, no document is filed to prove the same. The said Jaganadham worked in Ajam Jahi Mills and according to him he purchased the same with his retirement benefits. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim those properties as joint family properties. Item No.II of ‘C’ schedule i.e., Shilpa Kangan Hall was run by Dw.5 who is defendant No.2 in the suit. According to the plaintiff the said Kangan Hall was started by his father, later it was continued by defendant No.2, whereas, defendant No.2 stated that he started the said Kangan Hall in the year 1983 after the death of his father by selling the gold ornaments of his wife for investment and also by obtaining loans and no amount from his father was utilised for the said Kangan Hall. When plaintiff is claiming that the said Kangan hall was started from the joint family funds, he has to prove the same. But no document is filed in support of his contention. When plaintiff is claiming that the said Kangan hall was started from the joint family funds, he has to prove the same. But no document is filed in support of his contention. Hence, it is also not liable for partition. 21. Furthermore, with regard to item No.III of ‘C’ schedule property, plaintiff claimed that his father did real estate business and Ex.A.21 is the receipt dated 13.10.1998 executed by Samu Mohan Babu in favour of defendant No.1 for Rs.30,000/- and Ex.A.21 entry is also mentioned in Exs.A.32 and A.33 which are in the handwriting of defendant No.1 relating to real estate business and some amounts given to Mohan Babu and pattedars and registration expenses etc., are mentioned in them which are of the year 1983. The defendant No.1 and K.Narsaiah did real estate business in the year 1983 which became futile as the land proposed to be purchased for this purpose was covered by ULC Act and the same cannot be done in a concealed manner, as such, it was not mentioned while settling the matter. In partitioning ‘A’ schedule properties, according to plaintiff, there was cash and gold worth Rs.14 lakhs in the joint family. But the documents filed by the plaintiff are no way helpful to prove the same and without any evidence, he cannot claim that there is Rs.14 lakhs worth of cash and gold belonging to joint family. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for the same. Hence, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit only to the extent of 1/6th share in item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule, and item No.1(1) of ‘C’ schedule properties and directed the defendants for partitioning item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule, and item No.1(1) of ‘C’ schedule properties into six equal shares and to give one such share to the plaintiff. Hence, there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court and no interference of this Court is required. M.Jaganadham purchased plot Nos.5 to 7 of item No.1 of ‘C’ schedule property, but he is not made a party to the suit. Further item Nos.3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule property was purchased by K.Suguna and she is also not made a party to the suit. As a part of the property was purchased by the said persons, they are necessary parties to the suit. Hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further item Nos.3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule property was purchased by K.Suguna and she is also not made a party to the suit. As a part of the property was purchased by the said persons, they are necessary parties to the suit. Hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There are no merits in this appeal as such the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these points are answered. 22. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.