JUDGMENT :

The appellants are plaintiffs in O.S.No.54 of 1992 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The respondents are defendants in the suit. The appellants have filed suit against respondents for partition of plaint schedule house property bearing door No.10-349(20-20-8) situated in 10th Ward, at Tummalava of Rajahmundry Municipality, East Godavari District into three equal shares and to allot two such shares to them and for future profits.

2. The appellants and respondents hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants, as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs and one Mr.Palla Hanumantha Rao are children of late Smt.Palla Veeramma and Mr.Tatayya. Whereas, first defendant is the wife and defendants 2 to 4 are the children of late Mr.Palla Hanumantha Rao. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit against the defendants seeking relief of partition of plaint schedule house property into three equal shares and to allot two such shares to them stating that house bearing door No.10/349(20-20-8) situated in 10th Ward, within the municipal Corporation limits of Rajahmundry Municipality of East Godavari District, originally belongs to one Smt.Palla Veeramma, W/o. Tatayya and the said Smt.Palla Veeramma got two daughters and one son. The plaintiffs are the daughters and Mr.Palla Hanumantha Rao, who is no more, is the son. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that in view of order of succession, themselves and Mr.Palla Hanumantha Rao have got 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule property. They submit that after their marriages, they have been residing at distinct places, one at Kakinada and another at Vijayawada, due to that they could not enforce their rights effectually as soon as their mother Smt.Palla Veeramma died. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that they have been demanding the defendants for partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of two such shares to them, for which, the defendants paid a deaf ear to the demands of the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs got issued a registered notice dated 09.08.1991 to the defendants, for which the defendants issued a reply dated 28.11.1991 setting up a Will said to be executed by Smt.P.Veeramma, which is not binding on them. The plaintiffs submit that defendants have brought into existence the Will to knock away the entire property depriving their rights, which is not binding on them. They pray to decree the suit.

4. The defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and first defendant filed written statement which was adopted by defendants 3 and 4 and second defendant remained ex parte. It is the contention of the defendants that defendants 2 to 4 are not minors, they attained majority and D2 was married. They have specifically pleaded that the plaint schedule property is not the exclusive property of Smt.Palla Veeramma, who purchased half of the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 12.07.1957 and other half share was purchased under registered sale deed dated 27.10.1959 by Mr.Palla Hanumantha Rao. It is the contention of the defendants that after the death of her husband, Smt.Palla Veeramma lived in the house of her son Mr.Palla Hanumantha Rao, along with defendants till her death and the said Mr.Palla Hanumantha Rao also celebrated marriages of plaintiffs, who are his sisters and died intestate on 03.11.1976 and thereafter also Smt.Palla Veeramma lived with defendants in the plaint schedule house. They submit that as defendants 2 to 4 are young and their father is also no more, the said Smt.Palla Veeramma used to treat defendants 2 to 4 with utmost affection and they were very closely attached to her, due to that love and affection, during her lifetime, Smt.Palla Veeramma executed a Will dated 24.08.1976 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing all her interest of half share in the plaint schedule property in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and she died on 31.01.1979