M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

The defendants in Original Suit No.108 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole (for short, the 'trial Court') preferred this Appeal challenging the decree and judgment dated 06.03.1996, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff, for partition of the schedule property into 2 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff, for rendition of true and correct accounts and grant mesne profits, was decreed.

2. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S. No.108 of 1988, before the trial Court, will be adopted throughout this judgment.

3. During pendency of the Appeal, 2nd defendant-1st appellant and 1st defendant-2nd appellant herein died and, accordingly, A.S.M.P. No.8733 of 1999 filed to bring on record appellants 2, who is already on record, and appellants 3 and 4 as legal heirs of 1st appellant and respondents 4 to 6 as legal heirs of 2nd appellant is ordered on 02.07.2012; plaintiff-sole respondent herein died and, accordingly, A.S.M.P. No.472 of 2012 filed to bring on record respondents 2 and 3 as her legal heirs is ordered on 29.02.2012.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs alleging that plaintiff, 1st defendant and one Angalakurthy Ramulu are the natural children of Angalakurthy Subbaiah and Rosamma. 2nd defendant is the daughter of 1st defendant and wife of the Ramulu. After obtaining permission from Angalakurthy Subbaiah, Angalakurthy Papayya and Ammakkamma adopted Ramulu on 10.05.1943, as per Hindu rites and customs, under a registered adoption deed. Angalakurthy Subbaiah is no other than the brother's son of Papayya. Since the date of adoption, Ramulu ceased to be the member of his natural family and has been living with Papayya and Ammakkamma as their natural son. Angalakurthy Subbaiah, who own and possessed a thatched house in the village and as the same became dilapidated and fell down, shifted his residence to the house of Ramulu. Subsequently, Ramulu married the 2nd defendant. As Subbaiah became old, Ramulu used to assist and manage the property of Subbaiah. After death of Subbaiah in the year 1964 the suit schedule property devolved upon his widow Rosamma and his two daughters, plaintiff and 1st defendant, and since then they are jointly enjoying the schedule property with the assistance of Ramulu. Later, after the death of Rosamma, in the year 1977, the plaintiff and 1st defendant together became entitled to entire schedule property and have been enjoying the same jointly but, as the 1st defendant is living in the village where the schedule property situate, the 1st defendant is in management of the routine work relating to cultivation etc., and the plaintiff used to visit the village in connection with the cultivation like raising crops, harvesting etc., occasionally. Thus, the possession of schedule property by the plaintiff and 1st defendant is joint as they are co-sharers; moreover, the 2nd defendant, who is resident of the same village, also used to assist her mother, 1st defendant. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to co-operate for partition of the schedule property but she refused; thereupon, the elder by name Tulluri Venkaiah was sent to mediate but no purpose was served; hence, the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

5. The 2nd defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties, adoption of Ramulu by Papayya and Ammakkamma, execution of registered adoption deed but resisted the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds mainly contending that:

a) Angalakurthy Subbaiah and his son Ramulu used to live together in the ancestral thatched house, as members of the joint family, in spite of his adoption in the year 1943. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the Ramulu has nothing to do with the property of Subbaiah is absurd;

b) The 1st defendant admitted about the death of Subbaiah in the year 1964 while contending that after the