The judgment emphasizes that possession by one co-sharer does not constitute adverse possession, and mutation in revenue records does not establish ouster. The need for evidence to prove adverse possession and the sale of shares is also highlighted.

JUDGMENT

1. The appeal is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.224 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 5 are defendants 3 to 6 in the said suit.

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

3. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his share of Ac.6-75 cents from out of the plaint A schedule property, 5/12th share of the plaint B schedule property, directing defendants 1 to 3 to pay plaintiff Rs.1, 30, 250.00 being the profits in respect of his share of Ac.6-75 cents in A schedule property and 5/12th share in respect of plaint B schedule property and also directing defendants 1 to 3 to pay future profits in respect of A and B schedule properties till the plaintiff is put in possession of his share of the said properties and for costs.

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

(a) One Tupili Latcha Reddy, who is the father of the plaintiff, married one Ramanamma and as he did not beget any children through her, he married one Vanajakshamma as his 2nd wife and begot two sons Tupili Bhaskara Reddy and the plaintiff herein and two daughters Devalla Murathamma and Guduru Sitaramamma through her. Latcha Reddy and his two sons partitioned their joint family properties under a registered partition deed dtd. 24/5/1961. But they kept the properties undivided with specific 1/3rd share of Ac.5-00 each in A schedule property and 1/3rd share in B schedule property. Latcha Reddy had given Ac.1-00 of land each to his wives for their maintenance, which was kept undivided along with other lands and they were enjoying the said property jointly. While so, as the 2nd wife of Latcha Reddy died intestate on 23/9/1993, her Ac.1-00 of land devolved in equal shares on her husband, her two sons and two daughters, but remained undivided. Thereafter, Latcha Reddy also died intestate on 16/10/1993. Consequently, his share in plaint A and B schedule properties devolved equally upon his 1st wife, his two sons and two daughters. Later, Devalla Murathamma, one of the daughters of Latcha Reddy, died intestate on 13/10/1996. So, her share in the property devolved upon her son and daughters, who are defendants 5 and 6, equally. The 1st wife of Latcha Reddy died intestate on 15/1/2002. So, the heirs of her husband became entitled to her estate. Thus, the plaintiff became entitled to 1/4th share, defendants 1 to 3 being the legal heirs of Bhaskar Reddy together became entitled to 1/4th share. Defendants 5 and 6, being the son and daughter of Devalla Murathamma, together entitled to 1/4th share and the 4th defendant became entitled to the remaining 1/4th share in the estate of deceased Ramanamma. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to the said properties as detailed in the plaint A and B schedule properties.

(b) The plaintiff secured job in the United States of America (USA) in the year 1970 and he entrusted all his properties to his mother and his brother for managing according to his directions since his father was living separately. After death of plaintiff's mother Vanajakshamma, his brother Tupili Bhaskar Reddy managing the said properties as per the directions of the plaintiff. After the death of Tupili Bhaskar Reddy on 28/12/2002, defendants 1 to 3 are enjoying the properties of the plaintiff without accounting for the profits i.e. Rs.1, 30, 250.00. Hence, the suit.

5. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant, which was adopted by defendants 1 and 3, are as follows:

(a) He denied all the allegations made in the plaint except the relationship between the parties. At the time of marriage of Devalla Murathamma and 4th defendant, they were given land, gold and monies. Hence, they are not entitled to any share in the joint family properties. Under the partition, A schedule property fell to the share of L