IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the alleged adoption was not proved and the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, entitling the plaintiffs to partition of the properties.

JUDGMENT :

(V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.)

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 31.07.2000, in O.S. No.4 of1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the said Suit.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the Suit in O.S.No.4 of 1999 for partition of ABC schedule properties into 12 equal shares and to allot seven such shares to the plaintiffs and put them in possession of such 7 shares and for grant of future profits 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.4 of 1999, are as under:

Late Kolli Kannamanaidu, undivided son of the defendants 1 and 2, married the first plaintiff about 10 years back at Kotha Thutipala as per Hindu Law and caste custom, immediately after marriage, the marriage was consummated and since then the first plaintiff lived with her husband and lead marital life till about 7 years. The defendants 1 and 2, the fourth defendant i.e., daughter of defendants 1 and 2, the third defendant i.e., son of fourth defendant, the father of third defendant and the father’s mother of third defendant were living along with the first plaintiff and her husband. The first plaintiff and her husband lead married life amicably for about 2 or 3 years, during their wedlock the second plaintiff born to the first plaintiff through her husband Kannamanaidu. Later the defendants 1 and 2 and the parents of third defendant started to ill-treat the plaintiffs by not providing proper food and clothing. The first plaintiff came to know that her husband was having illicit intimacy with one Lakshmi, daughter of Seelamreddi Rajulu of Thutipala. With the instigation of said Lakshmi and the defendants 1 and 2 and the parents of third defendant, the husband of first plaintiff drove away the first plaintiff from his house, after driven away the first plaintiff, her husband brought the said Lakshmi into his own house and began to live with her.

ii) The husband of first plaintiff died on 30.05.1987. The second plaintiff is his unmarried daughter. She acquired right by birth in all the properties of her father and she is also a coparcener in the joint family as per Section 29-A of Hindu Succession Act. The properties of late Kannamanaidu devolved on the plaintiffs and the second defendant. Late Kannamanaidu died in an undivided status with the second plaintiff and the first defendant.

iii) During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 4 respectively. The plaintiffs do not wish to keep the properties described in A to C schedules joint with the defendants 2 and 4, so the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the described properties into 12 equal shares and to recover 7 shares from defendants 2 and 4 and for future profits.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3, by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The first plaintiff’s husband died after executing a will dated 20.05.1987 bequeathing his share of properties. The survey numbers and patta numbers given in plaint A schedule are incorrect in several aspects. So far as plaint B schedule is concerned item No.1 belongs to the family of first defendant and his late son, item No.2 belongs to Marri Appalanaidu, so also item No.3 belongs to Gavireddi Nookaraju. The plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition of plaint ABC schedule properties. The plaintiffs never demanded for partition and they are not entitled to the costs of the suit.

6. The fifth defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The first and second defen