RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants herein were the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 327 of 1983 which was filed in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, R. R. District at saroornagar. The respondents herein were the defendants in the aforesaid suit. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and for accounts and also for separate possession of suit properties. Both the parties led evidence in the suit and the suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff N0. 1 with costs allotting the plaintiff No. 1 one-third share in S. Nos. 258,266,272 and 273 and the house situated at Chandanagar village. Defendants No. l and 4 were also allotted one-third share each in the said suit lands and the house.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants in the suit carried the matter in appeal to the High Court by filing a. S. No. 129 of 1989 which was decided by the learned single Judge of this court who allowed the appeal in the following terms:" (1) The Will Ex. B-1 does not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently the property covered by that Wil1 is ordered and directed to be subjected to disposition in accordance with the Will; (2) the remaining suit schedule property shall be subjected to partition between the heirs in accordance with law; and (3) before drawing a preliminary decree, the trial Court shall cause guardian ad litem of the first plaintiff to be appointed, in accordance with law, to look after the interests of the 1st plaintiff in the Will as well as in the partition. "

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned single judge of this Court, the unsuccessful plaintiffs 1 to 3 seek to prefer this appeal. As the first appellant is a person of unsound mind, an application is filed to permit the 2nd appellant (2nd plaintiff) to act as Guardian of the appellant no. l in the L. P. A. and all other subsequent proceedings.

( 4 ) IT can be seen from the averments made in the plaint that plaintiff No. 1 is of unsound mind and plaintiff No. 2 is the wife of plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 are their children. It is averred by the plaintiffs in the plaint that late Eddu Chittari had ancestral joint family properties. The other members of the joint family were his two sons plaintiff No. l and defendant No. 1. They constituted a joint family. Eddu Chittari died about 10 years back. Plaintiff no. l is the elder son and defendant No. l is the younger son of Eddu Chittari. The widow of late Chittari was Pentamma who died about a year earlier prior to the filing of suit. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of first defendant. The plaintiffs have described the joint family properties. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff is not worldly-wise and he is a man of unsound mind and not able to understand the matters relating to the properties. Taking advantage of the said fact, the younger brother of plaintiff no. l i. e. , first defendant intended to grab the property depriving the first plaintiff of his legitimate share. It is further pleaded that the second plaintiff is looking after the first plaintiff and the first defendant refused to give any share in the property to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit.

( 5 ) THE defendants on appearance filed a written statement. The first objection was raised by the defendants stating that the plaintiffs 2 to 4 have no locus standi to file the suit. Plaintiff No. 2 was divorced by the plaintiff No. l aboui 20 years prior to the date of filing of the written statement in accordance with custom prevailing in Golla community. It was also disputed by the defendants that Chittari had any ancestral property in his hands. It was specifically pleaded by the defendants that all the properties mentioned in the plaint were self-acquired of late Chittari. He had executed a Will bequeathing certain property to his wife and remaining properties to the first defendant. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document