and defendant Nos.3 to 5 got the remaining 1/4th share in the property fell to the share of their father. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the share of late Venkaiah. Both the parties have not filed any document to prove that the property in question was acquired by late Balakistaiah and late Venkaiah jointly. However, the same is not of much significance in view of the scope of the present suit. As per the contention of defendants, the first plaintiff never resided in Yellareddy and it is the second plaintiff, who looked after the suit schedule property till 1971. The defendants are claiming that they got suit schedule property under Ex.B.1 agreement (Kararnama – exchange deed) dated 24.8.1971. P.W.1 denied the execution of Ex.B1 agreement. Even as per the version of the defendants, the plaintiffs are having right over the suit schedule property. The specific stand of the defendants is that the plaintiffs have exchanged the suit schedule property by taking the land covered by survey Nos.102 and 103 of Devanapally village. To prove the execution of Ex.B.1 in their favour, the defendants mainly relied on the oral testimony of D.W.3, who is the second plaintiff. In the cross-examination, D.W.3 in unequivocal terms admitted that the first plaintiff was not authorised him to execute Ex.B1 agreement. There is no proper explanation in the testimony of D.W.3, how he executed Ex.B.1 in favour of the defendants without the consent of the first plaintiff. Even otherwise, the second plaintiff alone is not entitled to execute Ex.B.1. Ex.B.1 is silent with regard to exchange of the properties between the plaintiffs and defendants. The relevant portion of Ex.B.1 reads as under:
