JUDGMENT : This Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs against the decree and judgment dated 21.01.2013 dismissing O.S. No. 170 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal. 2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. The suit is to declare plaintiffs as owners of suit schedule property; to evict defendants from suit schedule property; to award damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- from defendants with pedente lite interest @ 18% p.a. and for costs. The suit schedule property is a house plot bearing No. 27 admeasuring 490 square yards forming part of Survey No. 424 situated at Central Excise Colony, Waddepally Sivar, Hanamkonda. 3.1. The case of Plaintiffs is that their father Sri Ginna (Jinna) Malla Reddy was a member of the Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanamkonda (Housing Society) who purchased the suit schedule property from the Housing Society, on being allotted, by way of a registered sale deed Doc.No. 1181/1978 dated 18.05.1978. He settled the same through registered Gift Deeds bearing Doc. Nos. 6171/2001 and 6172/2001 dated 19.12.2001 as pasupu kumkuma in favour of plaintiffs. In January 2001, plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No.1, who is none other than their junior paternal uncle, is trying to alienate the same to the third parties; therefore, they got issued legal notice dated 04.01.2002 but the same was returned unserved; later they got issued a paper publication in Eenadu Daily newspaper dated 06.01.2002. 3.2. While so, Defendant No.1 trespassed into the suit schedule property on 11.01.2002 and forcibly occupied it and got constructed a compound wall towards southern side and two rooms in spite of due resistance of plaintiffs. Then, they lodged a complaint on 11.01.2002 with Subedari Police but police have not taken any action since it is a dispute of civil nature. Subsequently, Plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No.1 had obtained Municipal permission and House No. 2-7-757 as allotted by the Municipality on 24.12.2001. Therefore, the father of plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the Municipality; the Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation issued notices to both the parties to submit their evidence to prove their ownership and claim and after due enquiry, the Municipal authorities cancelled the House Number allotted to Defendant No.1. 3.3. Therefore, the father of plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the Municipality; the Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation issued notices to both the parties to submit their evidence to prove their ownership and claim and after due enquiry, the Municipal authorities cancelled the House Number allotted to Defendant No.1. 3.3. Defendant No.1 has got issued a legal notice dated 08.02.2002 to plaintiffs and their father claiming that he is owner of the suit schedule property which has fallen to his share in the partition in 1987; the father of plaintiffs executed a notarized affidavit dated 04.08.1988 in his favour by declaring that the property was allotted to Defendant No.1 in the family arrangement between the brothers and his father executed a Parishakar Patram dated 12.02.1989. Plaintiffs got issued reply notice dated 26.02.2002 to Defendant No. 1 denying the contents of his legal notice. 3.4. Plaintiffs contend that suit schedule property was purchased by their father out of his salary earnings, as such it is his self-acquired property; neither defendants nor anybody has any right over it. Defendants have forcibly occupied the suit schedule property on 11.01.2002 and constructed compound wall etcetera. Hence the suit. 4. The case of Defendants 1 to 3 is that G. (J) Malla Reddy (father of plaintiffs), along with G. Prabhakar Reddy, G. Bhupathi Reddy (Defendant No.1), G. Sudhakar Reddy and their father G. Sanjeeva Reddy constitute Hindu Joint Family and they were having properties at Thaherapur (Mandaripet village) and at Hanamkonda as on the date of joining of J. Malla Reddy as member of the Housing Society. Since he was a member of the Housing Society, the suit schedule property was purchased by the joint family in the name of Jinna Malla Reddy for the benefit of joint family out of joint family funds. The joint family properties i.e., agricultural lands and house property at Mandaripet village, the suit schedule property, were partitioned on 28.10.1987. In view of the objections raised by J. Malla Reddy, a family re-arrangement was made on 12.02.1989 and thereafter, a final settlement was arrived on 21.04.1991 between the joint family members. In the final partition of the joint family properties among the joint family members, suit schedule property fell to the share of Defendant No.1. In view of the objections raised by J. Malla Reddy, a family re-arrangement was made on 12.02.1989 and thereafter, a final settlement was arrived on 21.04.1991 between the joint family members. In the final partition of the joint family properties among the joint family members, suit schedule property fell to the share of Defendant No.1. Since the suit schedule property is registered in the name of Ginna (Jinna) Malla Reddy, father of plaintiffs, a notarized affidavit was executed by him in favour of Defendant No.1 on 04.08.1988 and original registered sale deed was also handed over to Defendant No.1 along with possession of suit schedule property. Since then, Defendant No.1 is in possession of suit schedule property; he got constructed a compound wall and a small house. The Municipal Corporation, Warangal assessed the constructions and allotted House No. 2-7-757 in the name of Defendant No.1 for the suit schedule property. To perform the marriage of his daughters (Defendants 2 and 3), Defendant No.1 intended to settle half of the suit schedule property to them and executed a registered Gift settlement deed dated 29.12.2001 in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. 4.1. It is further stated, Malla Reddy along with some others came to the suit schedule property on the night of 21.01.2002 and caused damage to the property. Hence, a police complaint was lodged. Defendant No.1 denied the allegation of trespass into the suit schedule property. It is also stated, Malla Reddy along with plaintiffs created the registered gift settlement documents, though they have no right in the suit schedule property. He stated about the exchange of legal notices. Defendant No.1 produced copies of notarized affidavit executed by J. Malla Reddy in his favour; family re-arrangement dated 12.02.1989 before the Municipal Corporation as directed by the Commissioner. Defendants contend that plaintiffs or their father has no right, title, ownership in the suit schedule property which exclusively belongs to Defendant No.l and through him to Defendants 2 and 3. 5. Warangal Municipal Corporation as Defendant No.4 filed its written statement averring that it is not concerned with the title dispute between plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 3. On the Application made by Defendant No.1, inspection of suit schedule property was done, existence of structures was verified and house No. 2-7-757 was allotted. On the complaint of plaintiffs, Corporation verified the documents produced by them and cancelled the house number. On the Application made by Defendant No.1, inspection of suit schedule property was done, existence of structures was verified and house No. 2-7-757 was allotted. On the complaint of plaintiffs, Corporation verified the documents produced by them and cancelled the house number. Defendant No. 1 on 31.05.2002 submitted an Application along with a notary affidavit executed by the father of plaintiffs and partition document showing allotment of suit schedule property in his favour before the Municipal Corporation to mutate his name. The authorities after inspecting the site found one A.C. Sheet Shed thereon, hence, the property was mutated in the name of Defendant No.1 on 15.01.2002. Later, both the parties filed complaints with documents. The Corporation therefore, suggested them to agitate their rights and settle the matter before the Civil Court. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed as many as nine issues. Plaintiffs examined six witnesses as PWs. 1 to 6 and marked Exs. A1 to A55. On the other hand, DWs. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs. B1 to B15 were marked. Two documents were marked as Exs. C1 and C2. 7. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it is proved that suit schedule property was purchased not out of the self-acquired funds of P.W.2 and it was purchased out of a joint family funds. 8. For better understanding, the relationship between plaintiffs and defendants, it is necessary to look at the following facts: Sri Jinna Sanjeev Reddy and Smt. Maduramma @ Mangamma have 4 sons and one daughter, viz. Malla Reddy, Bhupathi Reddy, Prabhakar Reddy, Sudhar Reddy and Nagamani. For the lis on hand: Malla Reddy has two daughters Smt. Uma and Smt. Suma (plaintiffs) and Bhupathi Reddy (Defendant No.1) has two daughters Smt. Saritha and Smt. Haritha (Defendants 2 and 3). 9. The entire lis depends on the Issue No.1 ‘Whether the suit plot was purchased in the name of G. Malla Reddy out of the income from his joint family or out of his own earnings?’. It is to be seen, the father of plaintiffs Ginna (Jinna) Malla Reddy came into witness box as PW2, who deposed in support of the contents of plaint. PW-3 is the colleague of PW-2 and he deposed of partition of properties at Mandaripet village between the family members of plaintiffs' father in October 1997. It is to be seen, the father of plaintiffs Ginna (Jinna) Malla Reddy came into witness box as PW2, who deposed in support of the contents of plaint. PW-3 is the colleague of PW-2 and he deposed of partition of properties at Mandaripet village between the family members of plaintiffs' father in October 1997. He deposed that suit schedule property was purchased from the personal savings of Malla Reddy. PW-4 a family friend deposed that Malla reddy purchased the suit schedule property from his earnings. 10. The Advocate Commissioner appointed in IA No. 780 of 2003 and another Advocate Commissioner appointed in IA No. 350 of 2002 deposed of the structures in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 has chosen to depose as DW-1 in support of their written statement. DW-2 a resident of the Excise Colony deposed that Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Jinna Sudhakar Reddy, brother of Defendant No.1 and father of plaintiffs, and Smt. Jinna Madhuramma @ Mangamma mother of Defendant No.1 and father of plaintiffs, deposed as DWs.3 and 5. They have categorically deposed that that suit schedule property was purchased from the joint family funds in the name of Malla Reddy; in the partition dated 28.10.1987 and re-arrangement dated 12.02.1989, the suit schedule property fell to the share of Defendant No.1. They deposed that Defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property by constructing compound wall and structures thereon, and neither Malla Reddy nor plaintiffs have any right in the suit schedule property. When Jinna Malla Reddy and Jinna Sanjeeva Reddy raised objections, again an adjustment in partition was affected on 21.04.1991. The re-arrangement to partition made on 21.02.1989 was mentioned in the said document which was executed in the presence of mediators. 11. Another crucial witness is DW-4. Mr. G. Vasudeva Reddy, Clerk of Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao, Advocate notary, who notarized and attested the affidavit given by the father of plaintiffs Malla Reddy on 04.08.1988. He deposed that while he worked as Advocate Clerk and Typist in the O/o Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao, Advocate Notary, Jinna Bhupathi Reddy and his brother Jinna Malla Reddy came to their office on 04.08.1988 and at the instructions of Jinna Bhupathi Reddy, Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao drafted an affidavit which was typed by him (DW-4) on the stamp paper brought by Jinna Malla Reddy. After going through it, Jinna Malla Reddy signed on the affidavit which was attested and notarized by Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao, Advocate Notary, on the same date. DW-4 identified the signature of Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao on the affidavit which was marked as Ex. B15. 12. A relative and family friend Mr. Revuri Mohan Reddy was examined as DW-6. He deposed of joint family and partition that took place. He also deposed that since partition, the suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of Defendant No1. DW-7 also deposed about the joint family and the partition. Based on the record, the trial Court recorded that the admitted facts are that the suit schedule property was registered in the name of Jinna Malla Reddy, father of plaintiffs, vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.05.1978; the original sale deed was marked by Defendants as Ex.B-2, whereas plaintiffs marked a certified of the said sale deed as Ex. A-1. Jinna Malla Reddy, Jinna Bhupathi Reddy, Jinna Prabhakar Reddy, Jinna Sudhakar Reddy are the sone of Jinna Sanjeeva Reddy and joint family members and they partitioned their properties on 28.10.1987 and later it was revised and reviewed by the above family members. As on the date of filing of the suit, Defendants 1 to 3 are in possession of the suit schedule property. 13. The trial Court further recorded that Jinna Malla Reddy -father of the plaintiffs, in the affidavit Ex. B15 stated that suit schedule property was allotted to Defendant No. 1 and the same was corroborated by Ex. B-14 Parishkara Patram. Though plaintiffs denied all these documents, they have not chosen to examine any of the family members who are parties to the partition. On the other hand, defendants examined Jinna Sudhakar Reddy as DW-3 (brother of PW2 and DW1), Jinna Madhuramma @ Mangamma who is the mother of PW2 and DWs 1 and 3, as D.W.5. 14. The trial Court also recorded that in spite of some discrepancies in cross-examination, on the whole, the evidence of DWs. 1 to 3 is consistent in respect of the suit schedule property fallen to the share of Defendant No.1 and the same was purchased out of joint family funds, though it stands in the name of PW2 and Defendant No.1 is in possession of the same. 1 to 3 is consistent in respect of the suit schedule property fallen to the share of Defendant No.1 and the same was purchased out of joint family funds, though it stands in the name of PW2 and Defendant No.1 is in possession of the same. Their evidence supported partition of the properties and the partition documents i.e. Parishakar Patram and Notarized Affidavit Ex.B15. Plaintiffs have not filed any document to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. 15. On the analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below answered Issue No.1 in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 and against Plaintiffs. 16. In view of the elaborate discussion, analysation of oral and documentary evidence on Issue No. 1, the Trial Court, answering the other issues, held that Jinna Malla Reddy had executed the Notarised Affidavit dated 04.08.1988 (Ex. B15); suit schedule property fallen to the share of Defendant No.1; Defendants have proved the family re-arrangement dated 12.12.1989 between PW-2 and DW-1 and other members of the joint family; Defendant No. 1 is having right over the suit schedule property; plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration and recovery of possession; Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants 1 to 3 have illegally occupied the suit schedule property; and Plaintiffs are not entitled for any damages claimed in the plaint. Thus holding, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs, by judgment and decree dated 12.01.2013. 17. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs preferred this Appeal on the following grounds: - i) The decree and judgment under appeal is against law and facts of the case. ii) The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. iii) The trial Court ought to have decreed the suit in view of the evidence led by plaintiffs. iv) Since only the first sheet of Ex. B-1 partition deed dated 28.10.1987 was filed and the remaining sheets are not filed, the same ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court. v) The trial Court took a part of Exs. B1 and A48 into consideration and rejected the remaining part of the documents. Documents have to be taken into consideration or rejected in their entirety, but a part of the same cannot be taken into consideration. vi) The trial Court erred in coming to a finding that though in Ex. v) The trial Court took a part of Exs. B1 and A48 into consideration and rejected the remaining part of the documents. Documents have to be taken into consideration or rejected in their entirety, but a part of the same cannot be taken into consideration. vi) The trial Court erred in coming to a finding that though in Ex. B14 Parishara patram dated 12.02.1989, item No. 11 ie. suit schedule property, stands in the name of Malla Reddy (PW2), it has been transferred to Respondent No. 1 (DW 1) through a notarized affidavit pursuant to a partition dated 28.10.1987. vii) The trial Court ought to have given a finding that schedule property which is registered in the name of Malla Reddy (PW 2) will be of his own. viii) The trial Court out to have ignored the evidence of DW-4 in view of Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act. ix) Since there is no whisper in Ex.B2 sale deed that the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of PW-2 out of the joint family funds, the trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that suit schedule property is a joint family property. The observations in this regard are unwarranted. x) the trial Court to have read the evidence of DW-6 in conjunction but not in isolation. The Court had omitted the evidence of DW-6 which is in favour of plaintiffs. xi) Evidence of DW-5 that lands which were purchased by her husband (father of PW-2 and D-1) were in his name, makes it clear that if suit schedule property was bought from the joint family funds, it would have been registered in the name of Sanjeeva Reddy, father of PW-2 and D-1 but the trial Court failed to notice it. xii) The trial Court failed to consider Exs. A45 and A47 Application of Jinna Malla Reddy dated 20.06.2005 to the Commissioner, WMC and Commissioner Warrant dated 23.03.2024. xiii) The 1st defendant deposed that he along with mother and family members have been residing in the house since long time having plinth area of 24 Sq.Ft, which is as small as a bath room and which cannot accommodate even one person. The trial Court lost sight of this aspect. xiv) The discrepancy in the evidence of Advocate Commissioner as PW-5 regarding the structures is not taken note of. The trial Court lost sight of this aspect. xiv) The discrepancy in the evidence of Advocate Commissioner as PW-5 regarding the structures is not taken note of. xv) The registered gift settlement deed executed by D-1 in favour of Defendants 2 and 3 in respect of suit schedule property on the strength of assessment made by the WMC under Ex.C-2 dated 24.12.2001 has no validity since Ex.C2 was cancelled by the Commissioner, WMC by proceedings Ex.B-24. The trial Court failed to notice it. xvi) The trial Court's judgment is perverse, bad in law and slipshod and sans proper reasons. 18. Heard Sri B. Harinath Rao, learned counsel for appellants and Smt. B. Vanaja, learned counsel for Defendants 1 to 3. 19. In nut-shell, learned counsel for appellants - plaintiffs stretched the grounds referred to above and learned counsel for respondents - Defendants 1 to 3 rebutted the same by referring to the evidence and findings of the trial Court. It is trite to re-appreciate the evidence to answer the grounds of Appeal. 20. The undisputed facts are : the father of plaintiffs (PW-2) and Defendant No.1 are natural brothers; PW-2 was a member of the Housing Society; suit schedule property was registered in his name in the sale deed dated 18.05.1978; PW-2 settled the suit schedule property through registered Gift Deeds dated 19.12.2001 in favour of Plaintiffs; DW-1 (also D-1) settled the suit schedule property through registered Gift Deeds dated 29.12.2001 in favour of Defendants 2 and 3. Warangal Municipal Corporation assessed the structures in the suit schedule property and assigned house No. 2-7-757 on 24.12.2001 and later, on the strength of the complaint of plaintiff's father, cancelled the same on 31.05.2002. 21. The crucial point that would resolve the entire dispute is whether the suit schedule property was purchased from the joint family funds of PW-2 and DW-1 in the name of PW-2? Whether PW-2 has given a notarized affidavit dated 04.08.1988 that in the family partition/re-arrangement, suit schedule property was given to DW-1? 22. Admittedly, Sri Jinna Sanjeev Reddy and Smt. Maduramma @ Mangamma have four sons and one daughter, viz. Malla Reddy (PW-2), Bhupathi Reddy (DW-1), Prabhakar Reddy, Sudhar Reddy and Nagamani. Suit schedule property was purchased in the name of Malla Reddy (PW-2) vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.05.1978. 22. Admittedly, Sri Jinna Sanjeev Reddy and Smt. Maduramma @ Mangamma have four sons and one daughter, viz. Malla Reddy (PW-2), Bhupathi Reddy (DW-1), Prabhakar Reddy, Sudhar Reddy and Nagamani. Suit schedule property was purchased in the name of Malla Reddy (PW-2) vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.05.1978. PW-2 contends that suit schedule property was purchased from his personal earnings, whereas DW-1 contends that it was purchased from the joint family funds. PW-2 deposed in support of the contents of the plaint. PW-3 deposed about partition of properties in October 1997, but he deposed that the suit schedule property was not claimed in that partition. PW-4 deposed that PW-2 purchased the suit schedule property from his savings. PWs. 5 and 6 are Advocate-Commissioners and they deposed regarding the structures in the suit schedule property. 23. DW-1 reiterated the contents of written statement. DW-2, a resident of Excise Colony deposed that Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Jinna Sudhakar Reddy, brother of Defendant No.1 and father of plaintiffs and Smt. Jinna Madhuramma @ Mangamma, mother of Defendant No.1 and father of plaintiffs, deposed as DWs. 3 and 5. They have categorically deposed that suit schedule property was purchased from the joint family funds in the name of Malla Reddy; in the partition dated 28.10.1987 and re-arrangement dated 12.02.1989, suit schedule property fell to the share of Defendant No.1. They deposed that Defendant No.1 is in possession of suit schedule property by constructing compound wall and structures thereon, and neither Malla Reddy nor plaintiffs have any right in the suit schedule property. When Jinna Malla Reddy and Jinna Sanjeeva Reddy raised objections again, adjustment in partition was affected on 21.04.1991. Re-arrangement to partition made on 21.02.1989 was mentioned in the said document which was executed in the presence of mediators. 24. Except DW-4, all the other witnesses of both the parties are somewhat relatives/family friends. DW-4 is a neutral witness who has no interest in the lis. He deposed that while he worked as Advocate Clerk and Typist in the O/o Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao, Advocate Notary, Jinna Bhupathi Reddy and his brother Jinna Malla Reddy came to their office on 04.08.1988 and at the instructions of Jinna Bhupathi Reddy, Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao drafted an affidavit which was typed by him (DW-4) on the stamp paper brought by Jinna Malla Reddy. After going through it, Jinna Malla Reddy signed on the affidavit which was attested and notarized by Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao, Advocate Notary, on the same date. DW-4 identified the signature of Sri P. Samba Shiva Rao on the affidavit which was marked as Ex. B15. 25. This Court perused the photo copy of Ex.B-15 Notarized Affidavit dated 04.08.1988 of G. Malla Reddy, S/o Sanjeeva Reddy (father of plaintiffs and PW-2). In this affidavit, PW-2 categorically stated that 'the Plot No. 27 of Sy.No. 424 of Waddapaly Village, Warangal Taluk and District in an extent of 490 square yards, nominally stands in his name though it is joint land. In the partition in 1984, the said plot was allotted and given to his brother Sri G. Bhoopathi Reddy with de facto delivery of possession and since 1984, he is owning and possessing the said land with exclusive and absolute rights and he (Malla Reddy) has no right, interest, demand and claim in respect thereof. He has no objection if the said land be mutated in the name of his brother G. Bhoopathi Reddy.' 26. DW-4 deposed of execution of Ex.B15. Neither plaintiffs nor their father (PW-2) denied existence of Ex. B15 or its contents. Defendant No.1's brother - DW-3 and mother - DW-5 have clearly deposed that suit schedule property was purchased from the joint family funds in the name of PW-2. This evidence was not shattered. 27. From the above analysis of evidence, more particularly in the light of un-impeached Ex. B-15, it can safely be concluded that suit schedule property belongs to Jinna Bhoopathi Reddy and plaintiffs have no right in it. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and dismissed the suit. This Appeal is therefore, devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 28. Interlocutory Applications, if any shall stand closed.