The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the validity of a Will and the consequences of non-joinder of necessary parties in a partition suit.

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, Eluru, West Godavari District. The respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allotment of 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant and for determination of mesne profits and for costs.

4. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

(a) The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 3rd defendant are brothers and they are the sons of one Satyanarayana. Defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the plaintiffs Satyanarayana are brothers and they are the sons of Singuluri Venkata Ramayya and his wife Ramanamma. Late Singuluri Venkata Ramayya and his three sons partitioned their joint family properties under a registered partition deed dated 28-11-1957. The properties mentioned in the schedule fell to the share of late Singuluri Venkata Ramayya under the registered partition deed dated 28-11-1957 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death on 17-01-1986. Later, the said Venkata Ramayya died intestate, leaving behind his wife and 3 sons and the L.Rs of his three sons are in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The father of the plaintiff Satyanarayana died on 18-02-1986 intestate, leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 3rd defendant as his L.Rs and they succeeded to the estate of their father. Subsequently, Smt. Ramanamma, wife of late Venkata Ramayya, died intestate in the year 1991 and on that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 3rd defendant are having 1/3rd share and defendants 1 and 2 are having 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties. The 1st defendant is managing the plaint schedule property on behalf of all the sharers and distributing the income to all the sharers. The 1st defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant for the last 2 years and postponed the payment on some pretext or other.

(b) Subsequently, the 1st defendant with a wrongful and dishonest intention is trying to secure pass book and title deed to the schedule property in his name by setting up exclusive title on him. The plaintiffs further came to know that the 1st defendant is basing his claim on some forged and fabricated documents. The 1st plaintiff immediately made a complaint before the Revenue authorities requesting them not to grant any pass book and title deed to the schedule property without their knowledge and consent. There are teak wood trees in the schedule property. The 1st defendant high handedly and illegally cut away the same and the Forest officials seized the said trees. In view of the hostile attitude of the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant expressed their unwillingness to continue the joint possession and demanded for partition of the schedule property into 3 equal shares and for separate possession of one such share to them. The 1st defendant is not cooperating for partition of the same. Hence, the suit.

5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which is adopted by the 2nd defendant. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

They agreed the relationship between the parties and the division of properties under a registered partition deed dated 28-11-1957. Even after the said partition deed, late Venkata Ramayya, his son late Satyanarayana and defendants 1 and 2 lived together till 1961. By then the joint family was heavily indebted to several creditors to a tune of about Rs.90,000/-. Then the father of the plaintiffs intended to separate himself with his father and brothers in the year 1961 and got himself separated. The said Satyanarayana, father of the plaintiffs, disowned the joint liabilities and he did not agree to share the outstanding joint liabilities. The 1st defendant used to assist his father