JUDGMENT :

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 23.07.1999, in O.S. No.175 of 1988 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the plaintiffs and L.Rs. of plaintiffs in the said Suit.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a Suit for partition of plaint schedule property into 8 equal shares and to put the plaintiffs 1 to 7 in possession of 1/8th share each and for future profits from the date of plaint till the date of possession and for costs.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.175 of 1988, are as under:

The first plaintiff and late K.S.Hirams are the sons and plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the daughters of late Karipalli Cornelius, who died intestate on 30.06.1960. The first plaintiff’s only brother K.S.Hirams died on 01.08.1977. The first defendant is the wife and defendants 2 to 5 are the sons and defendants 6 and 7 are the daughters of late K.S.Hirams. The plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of late Karipalli Cornelius. He purchased the site under sale deed dated 03.10.1955 and constructed house in it. After his death, plaintiffs and late K.S.Hirams inherited the plaint schedule property in equal shares. The wife of Cornelius predeceased him. So they are the only heirs entitled to the plaint schedule property and the defendants became entitled to the share of late Hirams. Till the death of Cornelius he used to manage the plaint schedule property by letting out the building and collecting rents. After his death the plaintiffs and K.S.Hirams, the plaintiffs and the defendants are continuing to do so. At present, the 8th defendant is in possession of the schedule property as tenant. The plaintiffs with an intention to have their shares separated, have been requesting the defendants to partition the property since one year, but the defendants postponing the same. Plaintiffs also got issued notice to the first defendant on 16.07.1988 demanding division of the plaint schedule property and requesting her to co-operate with them in effecting division. The notice but did not send any constrained to file the suit. first defendant received the said reply. Hence, the plaintiffs are

ii) Subsequent to the suit, plaintiffs 1 and 2 died and their legal representatives were added as plaintiffs 8 to 13, subsequent to the suit, 12th plaintiff died and his legal representative was added as plaintiff No.14.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 to 7, by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The plaint schedule property is not the self acquired property of Karipalli Cornelius and the said property was acquired with the funds of late Hirams by his father, accordingly, the said property is the property of late Dr.K.S.Hirams and the said Cornelius acted as trustee. Between 1955 to 1958 late Hirams lived in United States and sent money to his father, with that funds, his father constructed the building. After returning from U.S., the said Cornelius delivered the possession of the property to Dr.Hirams, who got the building mutated in his name and paid taxes although. Cornelius never claimed any right in the property any time. It was Dr.Hirams, from the year 1960 that was in exclusive possession along with the defendants. The building is not in the tenancy of any one now and it is wholly in occupation of defendants and they are alone entitled to the property exclusive.

ii) After adding the legal representatives, the first defendant filed additional written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 7. Its brief averments are as follows:

iii) The plaint is non-joinder of necessary parties and the suit is barred by time for the reason tha