JUDGMENT :

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/defendant No.6 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 14.06.2004, in O.S. No.205 of 1996 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 in the said Suit.

2. The Plaintiff filed the above said suit for (a) partition of plaint A schedule and C schedule properties into two equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot and deliver possession of one such share to the plaintiff, (b) to grant a decree directing the defendant to deliver the jewelry shown in the schedule B filed with plaint in specie or pay the value together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of payment; (c) to direct the defendant to render a true and correct account of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and make over or pay half share of the improvements made on the said Rs.1,00,000/- from 01.05.1990.

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.205 of 1996, are as under:

(i) The defendant is the paternal grand father of plaintiff. The plaintiff’s mother Anasuya died when plaintiff was in tender age. After the death of plaintiff’s mother, the father of plaintiff got second marriage. The plaintiff used to live with the defendant. The defendant has been acting as guardian of plaintiff during the minority of plaintiff. While so, some disputes arose between the defendant and his sons Satyanarayana Murthy and Varaprasada Rao. They demanded for partition of the joint family properties. The family was owning Ac.2.48 cents of wet land situated at Lolla village, Ac.12.60 cents in Krishnunipalem village and Ac.2.00 cents in Seela village and two tiled houses – one in the main road and the other in Palepuvari Thota of Gokavaram village. The said joint family properties were partitioned between family members including plaintiff on 01.01.1986. The plaintiff and defendant jointly were allotted items 1 and 2 of plaint A schedule properties. The sons of the defendant were allotted other properties, while affecting partition of the joint family properties, it was agreed by all the parties concerned that the properties allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the defendant must be treated as joint properties between them, each having an undivided half share therein. Partition list was executed on 05.02.1986.

ii) The plaintiff’s mother was having gold jewelry weighing about 30 sovereigns by the time of her death in the year 1972. The said gold jewelry was entrusted to the defendant after the death of plaintiff’s mother for safe custody and for delivery to the plaintiff whenever he demanded.

iii) The land situated in Lolla village was sold jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant and realized an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- by way of sale consideration. From out of the said amount the land shown as item No.3 of plaint A schedule property was purchased for consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. The defendant informed the plaintiff that he would rotate the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by lending the same for interest. The defendant has to account for Rs.1,00,000/- and make over half share to the plaintiff therein with the improvements. The same is shown as plaint C schedule property.

iv) While so, the defendant brought one married woman by name Rama Lakshmi @ Lakshmi, who is having her husband, one son and one daughter, to the house and kept her as his concubine. The plaintiff felt that it is no longer safe to keep the plaint A and C schedule properties as joint and got issued registered legal notice on 14.10.1996 to the defendant calling upon the defendant to effect partition of A and C schedule properties into two equal shares and to allot one such share to him and also to deliver the gold jewelry belonging to the plaintiff’s mother to the pla