The existence of a registered partnership deed governs the relationship between parties, rendering claims for partition of joint family properties unmaintainable when no evidence of joint family ownership is presented.

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs challenging the Decree and Judgment, dtd. 25/3/2005, in O.S. No.41 of 1999 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The Appellants/Plaintiffs filed the above said suit for division of suit schedule properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such equal share to the first plaintiff and three of such shares to the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and direct the defendants to render accounts for mesne profits for the first item of the suit schedule properties.

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.41 of 1999, are as under:

i) Late Sri P.Nagappa Naidu was the common ancestor. He had two sons viz., Subba Naidu and Pedda Seshama Naidu. Both of them passed away leaving behind their successors. Late P.Subba Naidu and late Pedda Seshama Naidu during their life time members of undivided Hindu joint family and possessed considerable movable and immovable properties. Late P.Subba Naidu had four sons namely Sanjeevi Naidu (first defendant), Chengama Naidu, Venkatappa Naidu and Seshama Naidu(first plaintiff). Late Pedda Seshama Naidu had one son namely Venkata Subba Naidu. (2nd plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 3 to 5 are the children of said Venkata Subba Naidu). (defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of late Chengama Naidu). Late Venkatappa Naidu left the joint family and he was adopted by N.Achama Naidu. The whole joint family consisted of plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 to 3 as co-parceners. Venkata Subba Naidu died in the year 1998 and the plaintiffs 4 and 5 became members of joint family. The husband of defendant No.4 was adopted into another family and defendant No.5 was adopted by late Venkatappa Naidu and so both are not entitled any share in the joint family. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 were shown as proforma parties. The joint family members possessed various types of properties at Kobaka village and Yerpedu village and the properties at Kobaka village were already partitioned among the co-parceners and the properties at Yerpedu village are yet to be partitioned.

ii) The first defendant got prepared partnership deed with false recitals. After the deaths of Chengama Naidu and Venkata Subba Naidu, partnership deed was not reconstituted by adding defendants 2 and 3, plaintiffs 2 to 5 as partners. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are in joint possession of item No.1 of plaint schedule property i.e., cinema hall. The defendants in collusion with Nuthalapati Venkatappa Naidu created false documents making it appear that the land of cinema hall was purchased by Venkatappa Naidu. The plaintiffs, late Chengama Naidu and late Venkata Subba Naidu were not acquainted with English language. So, they did not make an attempt to read the recitals in the partnership deed that was prepared at the instance of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 falsely got it mentioned that the first defendant and late Venkatappa Naidu are entitled for 5/8th share and they allotted 3/8th share to other members of the joint family. The said property was joint family property and it should not be subject matter of partnership deed and it will not bind on the members of joint family.

iii) First defendant and late Venkatappa Naidu were alone in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Cinema hall. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 2 and 3 never received their share of income from the Cinema hall ever since the date of construction of theatre i.e., 1976. So, defendants 1, 4 and 5 are liable to render the accounts and mesne profits from item No.1 to the members of joint family. iv) Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled the shares in item No.2 of the plaint schedule i.e., rice mill. The property mentioned i