1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.520 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is the appellant herein. The suit was one filed for partition of the schedule property into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and also for recovery of a sum of Rs.72,000/- from the defendants 1 to 3 towards past profits.

2. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the plaintiff and 1st defendant are the daughters of late Midathada Jogi Naidu, the husband of the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The other defendants are the tenants in the schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that the schedule property was purchased jointly by the plaintiff and 1st defendant on 27.05.1957 for a sum of Rs.4,264/-and subsequently a house was constructed and the plaintiff is residing with her husband in the northern portion in the ground floor of the upstair building and in the portion next to her in the ground floor. The 2nd defendant was allowed to collect the rents and 3rd defendant started management of the same after he was grown up. The plaintiff raised the dispute with regard to her share but the defendants did not give and plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendants 4 to 15 calling upon to pay her due share of the rents. The 2nd defendant started claiming that she is the owner of the property. Hence, the suit.

3. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement denying most of the allegations in the plaint and admitting the relationship. The amounts realised from the tenants is also disputed. The fact is that by the time of the execution of the sale deed, the 1st defendant was given in marriage to Chukkakula Mallunaidu, who is no other than the brother of this defendant. As the property i.e. vacant site in Suryabagh was gaining importance and potential value, this defendant had convinced her brother to sell 1st defendant’s gold given to her by the 2nd defendant herself to enable her to acquire the property. The 2nd defendant has thus pooled up the major part of the consideration money from her resources; added the money thus obtained from the 1st defendant and obtained the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff who was an unmarried girl at that time with a fond hope of getting a good match for her in a fiduciary capacity, and thus the property was held in her name also in trust for the 2nd defendant. Thus, the vacant site was purchased with the consideration of the 2nd defendant solely and with the money of the 1st defendant as stated above. Thus, the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant had contributed for the consideration and purchased the property. 2nd defendant had to purchase the property thus to screen the same from the likely and impending onslaughts from business rivals and relatives of her husband. The entire suit schedule property was thus acquired and built by the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff has no capacity. It is admitted that the plaintiff is residing in the northern portion in the ground floor permissively. The allegations that the 3rd defendant assumed management and intended to divide the rights of the plaintiff are also not correct. The allegations of third party is being inducted into possession is also false. The plaintiff being not owner of the property is not at all entitled for the share in the property. It is to be mentioned that this written statement of defendant No.2 was filed on 13.08.1991.

4. The 1st defendant also filed a written statement reiterating the contentions of the 2nd defendant.

5. The 3rd defendant is not a necessary party to suit. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement disowning any interest in the property or the litigation.

6. The 4th defendant filed a written statement contending that he was a tenant and paying rent of Rs.1,000/- per month.

7. After the filing of the suit, the 2nd defendant died and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are recognized as the legal heirs of 2