1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.15-04-1991 in O.S.No.137 of 1982 of the Subordinate Judge at Tanuku.

2. Appellant is plaintiff in the above suit. She filed the suit for partition of the plaint A & B schedule properties into six equal shares and for possession of one such share to her, future profits and costs.

3. The plaintiff, defendant nos.2 and 3 are children of one Suryarao through his first wife. After her death, Suryarao married again. Defendant no.1 is his second wife and defendant nos.4 and 5 are the children born to defendant no.1 and Suryarao.

4. There was a registered partition of the joint family properties of Suryarao among Suryarao, and defendant nos.2 and 3 under Ex.A-1 partition deed on 14.9.1971. The properties mentioned in the plaint A to C schedules are those properties which had fallen to the share of Suryarao and they were mentioned in the A schedule to the said partition deed. Suryarao died on 04-02-1982.

THE PLAINT

5. In the plaint, plaintiff contended that Suryarao had become the absolute owner of the properties mentioned in Ex.A-1; that herself and defendant nos.1 to 5 are class-I heirs; that defendant no.4, having been born after the partition under the partition deed dt.14-09-1971, cannot be considered to be a coparcener entitled to succeed to the estate of Suryarao; that she sought for partition from defendant nos.1, 4 and 5, but they postponed it on the one ground or the other; that she got issued Ex.A-3 registered notice dt.05-03-1982 to defendants; it was replied by defendant no.1 vide Ex.A-4 dt.10-04-1982 with false and frivolous allegations setting up a Will Ex.B-16 dt.10-01-1982 allegedly executed by Suryarao; the said Will is a rank forgery and the provisions made therein are unnatural and inconsistent. Therefore, she filed the suit for the above reliefs.

THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.S 1,4 AND 5

6. Defendant nos 1, 4 and 5 filed a written statement opposing the plaint claim and contending that Suryarao had executed Ex.B-16 Will dt.10-01-1982 giving life interest in these properties to defendant no.1 and vested reminder to defendant no.4 and that in view of the said Will, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the properties of Suryarao. They contended that defendant nos.2 and 3, having become divided members of the family of late Surya Rao, are not entitled to any share therein; that defendant no.4, by his birth, gets a half undivided share in the suit property and the remaining half share vested in Suryarao; even if Suryarao is taken to have died intestate, his half share would devolve equally on defendants no.1,4 and 5 and plaintiff; and the plaintiff would therefore get 1/8th share only and not 1/6th share as claimed by her. They further contended that by the time of his death, Suryarao was heavily in debt to the tune of Rs.67,000/-and that plaintiff did not evince any interest in discharging the debts compelling defendant no.1 to borrow money from other sources to discharge some of the debts and to meet the funeral expenses; and contended that in case plaintiff were to succeed to any interest of late Suryarao, she is bound to discharge her share of debts. They also pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the ‘C’ schedule dwelling house where defendant nos.1, 4 and 5 reside. They denied that Suryarao had any movable property as described in ‘C’ schedule. They contended that plaintiff is not entitled to any mesne profits since defendant nos.1, 4 and 5 have major shares (of 7/8th) and have been in management of the properties and their possession is not unlawful.

7. They also amended the written statement subsequently and contended that besides the property shown in the plaint schedule, there is an extent of Ac.2.56 cts in R.S.No.408/2 and an extent of Ac.1.93 ½ cts in R.S.No.407/3 in Velivennu village which belonged to the deceased first wife of Suryarao in which Suryarao had an undivided 1/4th share at the time of his d