Important Point—Court is bound to consider in a suit for partition, as on date of even passing of final decree, any changes to mould relief by impleadment or like and in working out equities without need of separate suits.

1. These three appeals are outcome of the respective three suit claims of O.S.Nos.136 of 1987, 90 of 1981 and 58 of 1989, from the conflicting findings of the respective decrees and judgments of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court.

2. These Second Appeals were earlier decided allowing the appeals by the common judgment and respective decrees, dated 25.02.1999, and when the same were impugned before the Apex Court in the Special Leave to appeal Civil Nos.19215 to 19217 of 1999, the Apex Court, by common judgment dated 11.11.2002, observing that this Court has not properly formulated the questions of law in the year, 1997 while admitting the Second Appeals, which are the pre-requisite, remanded the above three Second Appeals for fresh admission by formulation of the substantial questions of law involved and to decide afresh.

3. Pursuant to the remand orders of the Apex Court supra, the Second Appeals restored are since then pending, including for and by impleadment of parties or legal representatives of deceased parties, as the case may be.

4. Before framing the substantial questions of law from the grounds raised in the appeals, the factual background needful to mention is as follows:

4.(a). One Lingamaiah (predeceased his father prior to 1946), son of Yenkaiah (died prior to 1951)-the original owner of the suit lands, was the common ancestor to the plaintiffs of the three suits. Laxmaiah (died in 1974), Balraj (died in 1960, unmarried and issueless) and Balamma, w/o. T. Pochaiah are the three issues of said Lingamaiah. Laxmaiah married one Lachamma and Laxmamma, w/o. T. Jangaiah, is their daughter. Said Jangaiah (died in 1993) and Venkaiah (died in 1981) are the two sons of said Balamma. Jangaiah, through Laxmamma though issueless (for two children born and dead), through Andalamma, got three sons by name-Laxman, Murali and Ramadas (who are on record). Ramesh, who was the main person agitating in all the 3 suits, is the son, besides six daughters of Venkaiah, through 3rd wife-Indramma, leave about through 1st wife-Yallamma(died in 1993) got one daughter-Anasurya (not added as a party to any of the three suits as stated supra) and with no children through 2nd wife-Suselamma. Ramesh (died in 1999), leaving behind him, his wife Renuka and three children – Rakesh Goud, Vishali and Vinotha (who are on record), besides his mother-Indramma, on record in the three suits/appeals representing his estate also (since died in 2012). The fight is between the only daughter of Lingamaiah’s son Laxmaiah, by name Laxmamma, w/o. T. Jangaiah (2nd son of Balamma) and eldest son - Venkaiah of Lingamaiah’s daughter - Balamma, (that continues on one hand by Lachamma, mother of Laxmamma-died issueless on 22.02.2006 and also by said Lachamma brother’s son Shanker (D.3 in O.S.No.58 of 1989), as a legatee and alienee for some of the properties and, on the other hand, by Ramesh, Indramma and Suselamma and, after their death, by the wife and children of Ramesh, besides six sisters of Ramesh, by name - Shoba, Vijaya, Mamata, Anuradha, Bharati and Raja Rani, as LRs of Venkaiah, leave about for any separate estate of Jangaiah, to represent also by his 2nd wife’s three children).

4.(b). The status of Indramma, as wife of Venkaiah, is though chosen to dispute only from the so called deposition stray sentence in O.S.No.136 of 1987 of P.W.1-Ramesh, that his mother Indramma was kept by said Venkaiah, to his knowledge, since he was at the age of 2 years, apart from the positive presumption of wife from long living together, even what Ramesh deposed, no way doubts her status, as he says, since prior to his 2nd year, his mother and father were living together as man and wife, the three marriages of Venkaiah, if performed prior to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, those are valid and from the age of Ramesh even, it can be presumed of performed prior to 1955, and there is no dispute of their status as legal heirs of Venkaiah, in any pleadings or by any other