M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 10 of 1982 preferred this appeal against the impugned decree and judgment passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Anantapur, dated 31.01.1995. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants and they will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for convenience.

2. The plaintiffs filed suit for partition of schedule property into two shares and allot one such share to them and for rendering true and correct account of income from the plaint "A" and "B" schedule property alleging that Rudrappa and Somalingappa are the sons of Thippaiah who died more than 60 years ago. The property described in the schedule annexed to the plaint is the ancestral undivided Hindu joint family property. Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of Somalingappa, plaintiff No. 2 is the son-in-law of 1st plaintiff and Somalingappa, and plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 are the children of the 2nd plaintiff and his wife Rudramma, daughter of the 1st plaintiff and Somalingappa. Consequent on death of Rudramma, plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 succeeded her estate.

3. After death of Thippaiah, Rudrappa being the elder member used to manage the affairs of the joint family, whereas Somalingappa, who was a man of weak intellect and not worldly wise, was always a tool in the hands of Rudrappa. After death of Rudrappa, his son the 1st defendant took over the joint family affairs and managing the property of Rudrappa and Somalingappa. Somalingappa died while continuing as a member of joint family, and upon his death, his share devolved upon the plaintiffs, thereby they are entitled to claim share in the property. After his death, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants for payment of their due share of profits from the property, but they refused to pay any amount towards share of profits from the joint family property to the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant, who is a man of scheming brain and highly intelligent, appears to have brought into existence certain deeds and documents, which are not legally valid and never acted upon. Despite the evil designs of the 1st defendant, the property continued to remain joint.

4. The income from the property is more than Rs. 25,000/- per annum and the Kanuga trees yield more than 2000 head-loads of green manure which is valuable, and the total income per annum would be around Rs. 50,000/- from the entire property. But the defendants bent upon to cause loss to the plaintiffs and tried to secret the income. Therefore, the plaintiffs thought that it is no more safe to continue as members of the joint family and filed the present suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

5. The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations, while admitting the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants, but resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on the following three grounds:

(a) The 2nd defendant was adopted by Somalingappa with the consent of the 1st defendant and his wife after observing all the customary rituals and Somalingappa also obtained a registered adoption deed dated 13.07.1962 and since the date of adoption, the 2nd defendant became a member of the joint family of Somalingappa and ceased to be a member of natural parents. Therefore, from the date of adoption, the 2nd defendant being the coparcener became entitled to a share in the property, and after death of Somalingappa, the 2nd defendant being the sole class-I legal heir succeeded the entire estate and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in his own right. Even otherwise, he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption by anybody for over a statutory period of 12 years, thereby perfected his title by adverse possession. Thereby, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition of the schedule property.

(b) The 2nd contention of the defendants is that after adopting the 2nd defendant, there w