JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of and against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2001 in O.S.No.790 of 1992 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The defendant is the appellant.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition against the defendant, claiming half share of the plaint schedule properties.

4. As per the recitals of the plaint, the plaintiff is the widow of Late P. Ramchandra Reddy and the defendant is the son of Late P. Ramchandra Reddy through his first wife by name Smt. Ratnamma. After the death of the first wife, the said Ramchandra Reddy married the plaintiff and the defendant was 3 months old when his mother died. Sri P. Ramchandra Reddy died on 17.05.1989 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant as surviving legal heirs. The parties are Hindus by religion and they are governed by Mithakshara school of law. Late P. Ramchandra Reddy acquired the plaint schedule properties with his self-acquired funds and upon his death, the plaintiff and the defendant have succeeded to equal shares to the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff is dwelling in a portion of the plaint schedule property and also collecting the rents from the tenants of the said building towards her maintenance. When the defendant is not in cordial terms with the plaintiff, she decided for partition of the plaint schedule property and is no more interested in maintaining the joint ownership. On 01.04.1992, the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant for partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds which was refused by the defendant, for which, she was constrained to file the suit for partition. Later, by way of amendment, Item No.2 was added to the suit schedule properties in the plaint schedule.

5. The defendant filed a detailed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff never married his father and as such, she cannot get the share in the properties of her father and she was only a servant maid and her father made her to live along with them due to sympathy, as she had no means of livelihood. After the death of his father in the month of May, 1989, he allowed the plaintiff to stay in one portion of house and asked her to collect the rents on his behalf, as he used to reside in Bangalore on account of his Government service and as such, the plaintiff was only the caretaker of his house. Later, he got transferred to Hyderabad and his tenants paid rents to him from July, 1989 onwards. It is the specific contention of defendant that when he asked about the rents collected by the plaintiff, she gave evasive replies for which, he asked the tenants to pay rents directly to him and also addressed a letter to them in the month of October, 1991, but the tenants, instead of paying rents to him, filed petition before the Rent Controller in R.C.Nos.836, 837 and 838 and sought permission to deposit the rents in the Court, in view of the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff, in order to knock away the property of the defendant with collusion of the Municipal authorities, managed to get her name mutated in the revenue records, for which, the defendant made an application before the Municipal authorities and got her mutation cancelled by proceedings dated 06.05.1992. Thus, the defendant denied that the plaintiff got right over the property and further stated that Form No.I which deals with the application for pension and gratuity, does not show the column relating to Family Pension in the name of the plaintiff and also the certificate issued by Syndicate Bank, dated 30.10.1991 regarding the Savings Bank Account No.11309 BVCC2032 and SSD 1611 of his father (Late P. Ramchandra Reddy) were paid to him as nominee. Further, the insurance policy No.640231821 of LIC held by his father, was also paid