D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment made in a. S. No. 2698 of 1993, dated 29-11 -2001, of a learned single Judge of this Court.

( 2 ) THE above A. S. No. 2698 of 1993 arose out of the decree and judgment made in o. S. IMo. 254 of 1988, dated 11-8-1993, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, vijayawada, which was filed by the plaintiff for partition and possession of half share in the plaint schedule property and for profits. Aggrieved by the decree for partition and possession, the appellant in A. S. No. 2698 of 1993 brought the said appeal, which was ultimately dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge, vijayawada, made in O. S. No. 254 of 1988, by the learned single Judge of this Court. Having been aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the present Letters patent Appeal is preferred by the defendant in O. S. No. 254 of 1988 and the appellant in a. S. NO. 2698 of 1993 on the file of this Court.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions that have been canvassed before us, it would be necessary to give a brief resume of the material facts.

( 5 ) ONE Tavidisetti Nageswara Rao filed the suit in O. S. No. 254 of 1988 against the sole defendant Tavidisetti Venkateswara rao for partition of plaint schedule property into 2 equal shares and for separate possession of one such share to the plaintiff and for a decree of Rs. 2,100. 00 towards past profits for six months prior to suit and for costs, mainly contending inter alia "that the defendant is the eldest son of the plaintiff through his first wife viz. , Ramulamma, and that Ramulamma died intestate in the year 1972, and that the schedule property was the Sthreedhana property of late ramulamma, as the same was purchased by her under a registered sale deed, dated 9-9-1959, and that after her death the said schedule property had devolved upon both plaintiff and defendant as per the provision of hindu Succession Act, 1956, as they being the only nearest legal heirs, and that the defendant being a minor at the time of death of Ramulamma, plaintiff had the custody and protection of defendant, and the schedule property was being enjoyed jointly and had been paying taxes etc. , and that six months prior to suit, misunderstandings arose and that the defendant was appropriating the entire profits, without paying the share of the plaintiff, and that plaintiff issued a legal notice demanding partition on 8-3-1988, and on non-co-operation, the plaintiff had to file the above suit.

( 6 ) THE defendant filed his written statement mainly contending inter alia" that the relationship is admitted and that ramulamma died intestate in the year 1972, and that Ramulamma purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 1959 is also admitted. The nature of the property being sthreedhana was denied. It was specifically pleaded that Ramulamma has inherited landed property from her father, which was situated at Warangal, and as it was far away, she sold away the same and purchased a site and constructed a house therein, which is the plaint schedule property, and as such the plaintiff would not have any share in the said property, and that the defendant was always in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute right of ownership and possession, ever since the date of death of his mother and perfected his rights of title and ownership thereon by adverse possession for over statutory period, as of right and exclusively. It was also specifically contended by the defendant; that any management was only during his minority, that too on his behalf and plaintiff never claimed any rights or title thereon, and that his conduct also amounts to relinquishment of his rights, if any. The further pleading of the defendant was that his father married another lady and begot children, and for performing the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document