Sanjay Kumar, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 10.12.2001 in A.S.No.23 of 1985, whereby a learned Judge of this Court reversed the Judgment and Decree dated 16.10.1978 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, dismissing O.S.No.41 of 1975. The learned Judge passed a preliminary decree to partition the suit schedule property into three equal shares and to allot two such shares to the plaintiffs.

Enquiry into past and future mesne profits was directed to be conducted on a separate application to be filed by the plaintiffs in the trial Court.

Aggrieved, respondent Nos.2 and 8 in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (defendant No.2 and the widow of deceased defendant No.5 in the suit, who was brought on record as one of his legal representatives in A.S.No.23 of 1985) are in appeal. The appellants in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (plaintiffs in the suit) are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this appeal. Upon the death of respondent No.1 herein, his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.11 to 16 in this appeal. Respondent No.5 herein is respondent No.1 in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (defendant No.1 in the suit). Respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 in this appeal are respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the suit). Defendant No.5 died during the pendency of A.S.No.23 of 1985 and his female legal representatives were brought on record therein as respondent Nos.8 and 9. As stated supra, his widow, respondent No.8 in A.S.No.23 of 1985, is appellant No.2 in this LPA. His other legal representative, respondent No.9 in A.S.No.23 of 1985, is shown as respondent No.10 in this appeal. Respondent No.7 in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (defendant No.7 in the suit), a tenant in the suit schedule property, is shown as respondent No.9 in this appeal. Respondent Nos.5 to 10 in this appeal are however shown as not necessary parties.

The LPA was admitted on 25.09.2002 and status quo was directed to be maintained. Final decree proceedings were permitted to continue but the trial Court was restrained from passing the final decree.

Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

The suit, O.S.No.41 of 1975, from which this appeal arises was filed for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of two such shares to the plaintiffs. They also sought past and future mesne profits along with costs. The case of the plaintiffs was as follows:

Shaik Abdul Khader, the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.1 were the sons of one Mohd. Abbas Ali, who owned considerable landed property in Sangupalem Kodur in Guntur District. The eldest son, Shaik Abdul Khader, died in 1955. Mohd. Abbas Ali settled all his properties in favour of his surviving sons and grandsons under a registered Gift Deed dated 14.12.1956 (Ex.A.1). Mohd. Abbas Ali expired in the year 1957 and defendant No.1, being the only educated member in the family and also the eldest, assumed management of all the properties. He was the President of the Gram Panchayat, having been elected unopposed, and commanded influence and respect in the village. While so, under sale deed dated 25.05.1961 (Ex.A.9), defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property, being a site with a rice mill situated thereon along with buildings and appurtenant accessories, from out of the income of the joint properties, by raising loans on the security of these properties and also by selling some of them. The suit schedule property is situated at Chandole Village which is about 2 K.Ms. from Sangupalem Kodur where the plaintiffs were residing. The suit schedule property was managed by defendant No.1 alone by spending joint monies for necessary repairs, etc. The plaintiffs did not and could not question defendant No.1 as to the management of the properties. However, defendant No.1 began squandering the income from the joint properties and was also using the same for his political activities and person