The defendants in O.S.No.7282 of 1999 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai preferred this appeal against the Decree of the Trial Court dated 13.08.2003 made in the said suit. The plaintiffs in the said suit are the respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal. Since the 7th appellant/7th defendant died after filing of the appeal, Samraj alias Subramani, represented by his father and next friend B.Prakash has been impleaded as 3rd respondent in this appeal.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are respectively the wife and daughter of M.Chandrababu Naidu, S/o. Late Madhava Naidu. The deceased 1st appellant Chellammal was the wife of the above said Madhava Naidu. Krishnamoorthy, Kannan and Lakshmana Kumar [appellants 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4] are the sons of late Madhava Naidu. Rangammal and Pommie alias Kasthuri are the daughters of Madhava Naidu. The 7th appellant/7th defendant Devi was yet another daughter of Madhava Naidu. Madhava Naidu and the 1st appellant had one more son by name Chandrababu Naidu. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 are respectively his wife and daguther. The above said relationship remains undisputed.

3. Contending that when the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff was carrying the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff in the womb, her husband Chandrababu Naidu deserted her; that thereafter, his whereabouts were not known and that he was not heard of living for about 13 years, giving rise to a presumption of death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the original suit came to be filed by the 1st respondent Shanthi for herself and as guardian of the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff Gomathi for a declaration that the said Chandrababu Naidu was deemed to have died.

4. Contending further that the suit properties were self acquisitions of and hence absolute properties of Madhava Naidu; that he died intestate; that the appellants 2 to 7 and Chandrababu Naidu, being the sons and daughters of Madhava Naidu, alone were the legal heirs of late Madhava Naidu and thus all the 7 persons were entitled to 1/7th share each and that since Chandrababu Naidu was deemed to be dead, his 1/7th share devolved upon the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2, they had prayed for the relief of partition and separate possession and also for mesne profits.

5. The appellants 1 to 7/defendants 1 to 7 resisted the suit denying the plaint averments regarding the alleged civil death by Chandrababu Naidu and contending that the suit B-schedule property being the self acquired property of Chellammal, the 1st appellant/1st defendant, respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 did not have any right to share in it; that in respect of plaint A-schedule property, Chandrababu Naidu himself collected the value of his share and that hence, respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 were not entitled to any share either in the plaint A-schedule property or in the B-schedule property.

6. According to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2, late Madhava Naidu got title to the suit B-schedule property under a Gift Settlement Deed and hence, the same was also his self acquisition. The appellants 1 to 7/defendants 1 to 7 contended that the suit B-schedule property was the self acquired property of the 1st appellant/1st defendant and the Settlement Deed executed by her in favour of her husband Madhava Naidu was a sham and nominal document. They also contended that even otherwise, the appellants/defendants 1 to 7 had preferred title by continuous possession ousting Chandrababu Naidu and that hence, the respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs 1 and 2 could not get any relief as prayed for in the suit.

7. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

i. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for declaration that Chandrababu Naidu is dead ?

ii. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiffs 1/7th share in the suit properties ?

iii. Are the plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits ? If so, to what extent ?

iv. Whether th