8a) Firstly, severely criticizing the trial Court’s finding that the partition took place way back in 1942 as erroneous, learned counsel for appellants would argue that the said oral partition is quite unrealistic because, surprisingly Chandrappa—the father of Viswanatha Rao and D1, did not allocate any share for himself in the said oral partition. As he was a retired revenue employee by then, naturally reserve a share considering the future of himself and his wife. Thus, non-taking a share is a circumstance against the partition. Nextly, he would argue, by the time of alleged partition in 1942 D1 was only two years old child as such there was no necessity for the father of D1 to effect partition at that stage. He would further argue, if really the lands at Puppalaguda fell to the share of D1, he would not have kept silent without getting those lands mutated in his favour till 1974. His conspicuous silence till 1974 and applying for mutation only after the death of Viswanatha Rao in 1970, would speak volumes that all the properties were in fact joint family properties purchased by their father in the name of Viswanatha Rao, which stood in his name till his death, as he acted as Kartha of joint family during his life time. Learned counsel argued, as Kartha, Viswanatha Rao sold the lands of Rudraram village for the benefit of the
