GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 15- 2-2000 passed in OS No. 3 of 1996 (old OS no. 8 of 1985 on the file of Sub-Court, madanapalle) by the Additional District judge, Madanapalle.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is defendant no. 3 in the suit. The plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property called Sree lodge Building with upstairs and five shop rooms on the ground floor bearing Door nos. 13-293, 13-294 and 13-295 with specific boundaries given in the plaint schedule.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The facts of the case are thus:

( 4 ) THE 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff are father and son. Defendant No. 1 is the eldest brother of the 1st plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 and 3 are mother and another brother of the 1st plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. The suit house was jointly constructed by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant in the suit purchased by them jointly and as such the plaintiffs are entitled for 2/3rd share and the 1st defendant is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property. The house site was purchased from Seethamma and others under the registered sale deed dated 5-5-1966. It was also stated that the suit building was in the possession of the official receiver in IP No. 9 of 1972 and IP no. 6 of 1972 and after disposal of the insolvency proceedings the receiver was directed to re-deliver the property to the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and they accordingly took possession of the suit building from the receiver and executed receipt on 30-12-1983.

( 5 ) IT was further stated that the defendants 2 and 3 who have been added at the instance of the 1st defendant have absolutely no right and title to the suit property. As the 1st defendant was not evincing any interest to invest money for renovation of the suit building, the plaintiffs demanded their 2/3rd share in the suit property, but he has been evading the partition and therefore a registered notice dated 5-12-1984 was issued calling upon the 1st defendant to effect partition and as he failed to do so, the present suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the 2/3rd share in the suit property by metes and bounds.

( 6 ) RESISTING the suit claim, the 2nd defendant i. e. mother the of the 1st plaintiff filed written statement which was also adopted by the 3rd defendant, to the effect that there is no truth in the claim of the plaintiffs that they have got 2/3rd share in the suit property and they very much have a share in the suit property. It was stated that the 2nd defendant has been the Manager of the joint family consisting of herself, the 1st plaintiff, 3rd defendant and another son by name Pabbathi prabhakar Gupta and the said Prabhakar gupta died unmarried as a member of the joint family. It was further stated that 1st plaintiff being the eldest son used to look after the affairs of the joint family property.

( 7 ) IT was further stated by the 2nd defendant that during thelife time of her husband, the 1st defendant had relinquished his right under a registered Relinquishment deed dated 24-11-1952 and got separated from the family. That her husband by name pabbathi Narayana Chetty left the family and went away and his whereabouts are not known for the last 30 years and therefore he is legally presumed to be dead. It is also stated that the 3rd son of the 4th defendant Krishna Murthy had also relinquished his right in the family property under a registered relinquishment deed dated 4-6-1957 in favour of the 2nd defendant and left the family and has been living separately. It is further stated that the 5th defendnnt-Ramamurthy who is the 4th son of the 2nd defendant, due to some misunderstanding had left the family by executing Relinqui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document