( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 14 to 18 and 20 to 26 in a suit for partition filed by respondents 1 to 7 as indigent persons are the appellants. For the sake of convenience, parties to the appeal would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the great grandsons of Rachuri Swamy who had a son by name subbarayudu whose son is Gangaraju i. e. the 1st defendant and was married to the 2nd defendant. They begot plaintiffs 1 to 5 and three daughters from out of their wedlock. Properties specified in the plaint 'a' schedule which belonged to Rachuri swamy devolved on his son Subbarayudu and thereafter on the first defendant. As first defendant was addicted to vices and was contracting debts for that purpose, he nominally executed a gift deed in respect of the plaint 'a' schedule properties in the name of his wife, the 2nd defendant and so the said gift deed is void. 2nd defendant in pursuance of the said gift deed, executed sale deeds in favour of some of the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest. Since all those transactions of sale are void, they can ignore those transactions and seek partition of their share in 5/6th of the plaint 'a' schedule property. Since fourth plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs 6 and 7 came on record as his legal representatives.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 3, 4, 7 to 11 and 13 to 16 filed a common written statement, which was adopted by defendants 9, 17 and 18. 5th defendant filed a separate written statement. Other defendants chose to remain ex parts.

( 4 ) IN his written statement, 5th defendant while admitting the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 denied the allegation that plaint 'a' schedule properties are all the joint ancestral properties of the defendants 1 and 2 and contended that they are all the self acquired properties of the first defendant. As 1st defendant was not pursuing the caste profession and was whiling away the time, persons interested in the family got the settlement deed dated 29-1-1952 executed by the 1st defendant under which he reserved a life interest in himself and his wife, the second defendant, and gave the vested reminder to his sons and continued to be in management of the said property. Item 9 of the plaint A schedule was purchased by him from the 2nd defendant for valuable consideration. He later exchanged it with the property shown in the schedule appended to his written statement. Since the suit is barred by time, plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.

( 5 ) THE averments, in brief, in the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 3, 4, 7 to 11 and 13 to 16 are, the averment that the properties covered by the plaint 'a' schedule are all ancestral properties of the father of the plaintiffs and that the first defendant was addicted to vices is not true. Their contention that the gift deed executed by the first defendant nominal and fictitious and that it does not bind them is not correct. Plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the alienations made by 2nd defendant. As the suit is barred by time, they are not entitled to any relief.

( 6 ) BASING on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled as many as 8 issues for trial. In support of their case, plaintiffs examined only the 1st plaintiff as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 12. In support of their case, defendants examined nine witnesses as D. Ws. 1 to 9 and marked exs. B. 1 to B. 16 on their behalf. The trial court, on issues 1, 2 and 6, which relate to the questions about the age of the 4th plaintiff by the date of plaint, the suit being in time and the adverse possession of defendants 3, 4, 7 to 11 and 13 to 18 in respect of the properties purchased by them, held that the 4th plaintiff was born on 15-1-1959 and was aged 21 years 2 months by the date of plaint and that the suit filed by him is not barred by limitation and that none of defendants 3, 4, 7 to 11 and 13 to 18

Click Here to Read the rest of this document