(1.) These three appeals arise out of the final decree proceedings passed in O.S. 32 of 1946, on the file of the District Court, Anantapur. The above suit was instituted by the present appellants for the partition and separate possession of their share in the joint family properties described in plaint schedules A to D, and allotting to them one share and to the defendants 1 and 2 the other share. The case of the plaintiffs is that the father of the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant were the sons of one Madhavayya. Madhavayya and his two sons, Ramayya, the 1st plaintiffs father, and the 1st defendant Venkata Subbaiah, constituted an undivided Hindu family owning the joint family properties referred to in the plaint schedules. It is alleged that Madhavayya died in or about 1935, and that even during his life time the 1st plaintiffs father, Ramayya was living separately and that out of 590 acres of land Ramayya was put in possession of 170 acres. It is further alleged that defendants 1 and 2 had been in possession of the rest of the lands, the family outstandings and moveables and that certain lands referred to in the Schedule C to the plaint. It is also alleged that defendants 4 to 19 were in possession of such items as noted against each one of them.
(2.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement pleading inter alia that in the year 1917 there was a partition between Ramayya and the 1st defendant in the presence of their father, Madhavayya, that the family lands were divided into two lots, one lot comprising of 310 acres burdened with the obligation to discharge the family debts, and the second lot consisting of 240 acres without the liability to dicharge the debts, that the plaintiffs father was asked to choose between the two lots and that he chose lot No. 2 for his share and in pursuance of that arrangement the two branches of the family have been in separate and exclusive possession of their respective lands and that they were also paying cist separately.He also pleaded that there were certain acquisitions made by the 1st defendant in which the plaintiffs branch could obviously have no share. It was further contended that in O.S. No. 226 of 1939 the plaintiffs themselves set up the case of partition that the present case was at variance with the case as nut forward by the plaintiffs in that suit. As regards the alienations noted in schedule "C", it is contended that the 1st defendant was entitled to sell those properties, most of which were for the discharge of the family debts. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the various other denials and allegations in the written statement.The second defendant while adopting in the main the written statement of the 1st defendant had stated that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and estoppel by reason of the case put forward by the plaintiffs in O. Section 226 of 1939, on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Gooty, that he got himself divided from his father, the 1st defendant, as a result of which he was in separate and exclusive possession of items 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 16 17 and 18 in the plaint B schedule, and item 16 of the "C" schedule and that he sold item 16 of the "C" schedule to the 18th defendent. The 3rd defendant while denying many of the allegations in the plaint had set up exclusive title in his Own right to items 12 to IS of the plaint "B" schedule properties.
(3.) The 20th defendant claimed item No. 8 of the plaint schedule as belonging to him by reason of his having held it adversely to the plaintiffs as well as defendants 1 and 2. The other defendants 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for value from the defendants or their alienees, and that they had made improvements and that their shares should be upheld.