This appeal has been preferred by defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No.32 of 1984.The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition of the plaint 'A' to 'G' schedule properties into twelve equal shares and for separate possession of one such share to the plaintiff and for past profits of 1981.

2. The averments made in the plaint are briefly as follows:

The plaintiff and defendants 10 to 13 are daughters and the first defendant is the son of late Ravuru Apparao. Defendant No.4 is the wife of defendant No.1. Defendants Nos.6 to 9 are some of the persons in whose favour defendant No.1 has executed sale deeds for some of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff is contending that the sales are not binding upon her. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 and Defendant No.5 is the lessee of some of the lands under the plaintiff. Late Appa Rao died in the year 1971 intestate. By the time of his death the schedule properties are possessed by him and his wife predeceased him. So the plaintiff, D1 and D10 to D13 are the class-I heirs of late Appa Rao and succeeded to his moveable and immovable properties covered by the suit schedule. The suit schedule properties were kept joint and D1 was managing the properties on behalf of all the heirs as Manager of the joint family. From 1979 D1 evaded payment of profits and cash belonging to the share of the plaintiff and other daughters. The plaintiff and other daughters raised a dispute with D1 for partition of their share of properties. A registered notice was also issued on 07-09-1981 and D1 gave a reply to it. Subsequently, D1 in order to cause loss to the plaintiff and other daughters concocted documents and sale deeds regarding some of the items of the suit schedule. The sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff and other daughters as they are not parties to the same. It is no longer beneficial to plaintiff to remain joint, hence the suit.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 to 4, which is as follows:

The plaint allegations are denied. The extents and values of the plaint schedule properties are not correct. Late Apparao got only Ac.0.33 cents of wetland in Sy. Nos. 210/2, 210/4, 210/5 and 210/7. In the plaint 'C' schedule there used to be old ancestral house of the first defendant. It was in a dilapidated condition by 1972. The D1 with the income from the ricemill re-constructed the house covered by 'C' schedule in the years 1974 to 1977. The plaintiff's father has no right in the said house. It is not a joint family property of the plaintiff and other defendants. Even if it is considered as a house standing on the ancestral site, this being the dwelling house, the daughters under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act cannot claim any partition. So far as 'E' schedule property, which is a rice and flourmill, it is not a joint family property. The flourmill was constructed subsequent to 1961 with the marriage gifts of the first defendant and his wife and construction and installation of the mill was completed in 1962. The mill is constructed during the lifetime of the father without the aid of the joint family funds and the father of the first defendant was joint family Manager also. Construction of the mill was done in the years 1964 and 1965. 'E' schedule property was never treated as joint family property. So far as 'F' schedule properties are concerned item No.1 was a vacant site leased out to Challa Suryanarayna for putting up a buddy to run a soda shop and the same do not belong to the first defendant. Item No.2 is a temporary shed leased out to Kottakota Prasadarao. Items 3, 4 and 5 are vacant sites on which buddies are put up by lessees. Item No.6 is an improvised shed in which a fancy shop is put up by the lessee. After the death of the defendant's father in the year 1971, there is a family arrangement between the defendants and the plaintiff regarding the partition of the properties of th