This is an appeal preferred by the Defendants 1, 2 and 6 against granting of a Preliminary Decree for partition in the suit filed in O.S.No.7 of 1996, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.

2) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she is the daughter of the 1st defendant. D2 to D5 are her sisters. Her marriage was performed on 11.5.1986. The marriage of 5th defendant was performed subsequently. The marriages of D2 and D3 were performed about 20 years ago. D2 and D4 were given substantial properties from out of the joint family properties and therefore, they were not entitled to any share. She is having 1/3rd share along with D1 and D5. During the pendency of the suit, D1 said to have executed a settlement deed dated 9.3.1996, and a registered Will dated 26.5.1993, in respect of the joint family properties. They are not valid. D6 claims that he is the adopted son of D1. It is not true. This plea was put up to deny her share. She gave a lawyer’s notice on 5.2.1996 demanding her share in the properties. Therefore, she sought 1/3rd share in the joint family properties consisting of Ac.4.55 cents mentioned in the plaint -A-schedule and a house bearing Door No.11-1-139 of Pithapuram shown in the B-schedule.

3) D1, D2, D4 and D5 resisted the suit. It is their case that D1 had taken D6, the son of D2 in adoption, on1.6.1983, as per Hindu rites about ten years prior to 15.5.1993. D1’s wife died in the year 1972. His daughter D2 and her husband Satyanaranayana gave their son D6 in adoption to D1. Later he executed registered adoption deed evidencing adoption. Since then D6 has been living with him as his Aurasa son. The plaintiff’s marriage was taken place prior to September 1985 and as such she has no right to demand a share in the properties. D1 gave a reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff. Item No.3 of the plaint A-schedule consists of Ac.0.41 cents, but not Ac.0.71 cents. Equally, item No.4 consists of Ac.0.21 cents and not Ac.0.61 cents as mentioned. Item No.2 was given to the plaintiff towards her share. D1, by his self-exertions purchased the plaint B-schedule house, which became old and dilapidated. He gave the remaining items to his other daughters. The total extent of items – 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 is Ac.2.00. Item No.2 consists of Ac.0.25 cents. He executed a settlement deed dated 9.3.1996 in favour of D6 in regard to the above properties. Since then, he has been enjoying the said property. He also executed a registered Will dated 26.5.1993 bequeathing his properties to D6. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4) D5 filed written statement, alleging that the 1st defendant and the husband of the 2nd defendant obtained her thumb impression on typed papers by misrepresentation. Except item No.2, remaining properties are ancestral properties. Plaint-A and B schedule properties are purchased from out of the income from the joint family properties. She along with the plaintiff demanded partition. In order to avoid share to her, D1 had fabricated the documents. She is entitled to a share as per Act 13 of 1986.

5) D6 filed written statement alleging that he was adopted by D1 on 1.6.1983, when he was aged 14 years. There is no age restriction in Kapu community. Plaintiff and D2 to D5 were given Ac.0.50 cents each by D1 at the time of their marriages. His father had purchased B-schedule house from his self-exertions. It is not his ancestral property. His father executed registered settlement deed and gave the house to him as well as registered Will in his favour bequeathing the properties. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6) Upon the pleadings, the Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff’s marriage took place on 12.5.1986?

2. Whether the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties as prayed for?

4. Whether the 1st defendant is in p