JUDGMENT:

The unsuccessful plaintiff in Original Suit No.20 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bobbili (Now, Senior Civil Judge), Vizianagaram District, (For short, the 'trial Court') preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment dated 20.03.1995, wherein the suit filed for partition and other reliefs was dismissed.

2. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S. No.20 of 1989 will be adopted throughout this judgment.

3. The plaintiff filed suit for partition of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property into 10 equal shares, allot one such share, and put her in separate possession of the property, after evicting defendants and for profits from the date of filing suit till the date of delivery of possession, alleging that Karri Simhachalanaidu, who died intestate, was the absolute owner of the schedule property which devolved upon him from his ancestors. His wife, who is not a party to the suit, also died intestate. The defendants are his sons who constituted as members of Hindu joint family. The plaintiff, being unmarried daughter of the 1st defendant and a coparcener in the joint family, is in joint possession and enjoyment of the property along with other coparceners. The joint family is an agricultural family; as the 2nd defendant is not interested to continue with the other defendants, got divided from defendants 1, 3 to 5, took his legitimate share in the joint family property long back, since then he was in possession and enjoyment of his share of property, exclusively. Thus, the 2nd defendant is nothing to do with the schedule property. The other defendants i.e., defendants, 1, 3 to 5 are continuing as members of the joint family. However, the 2nd defendant is impleaded only as proforma party; no relief has been claimed against him.

4. The 1st defendant legally married one Mahalakshmi about 23 years ago, and during their wedlock, the plaintiff herein was born. The defendants’ family is one of the richest families in the village. The 1st defendant developed dislike towards the plaintiff's mother and used to ill-treat her. In the year 1982, the 1st defendant deserted plaintiff's mother and since then, the plaintiff and her mother were residing with the plaintiff's maternal aunt in the same village; later, the 1st defendant developed illicit intimacy with one Balijireddy @ Datti Ramanamma in the house of her maternal aunt and Maradana Kuramamma of Chintada village. The said Ramanamma was a divorcee. Later, 1st defendant brought Ramanamma to the family house in the month of January, 1985 and when he is about to marry Ramanamma, the plaintiff's mother filed a Suit in O.S. No.19 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Bobbili and obtained interim injunction against the 1st defendant and Ramanamma restraining them from undergoing marriage ceremony.

5. The 1st defendant filed a petition in O.P. No.9 of 1985 on the file of the same Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights against the mother of the plaintiff, Mahalakshmi, which was dismissed after full-fledged trial. Subsequently, the plaintiff's mother filed M.C. No.29 of 1985 claiming maintenance for herself and for plaintiff before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bobbili under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by granting maintenance to them.

6. The 1st defendant filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the District Court, Vizianagaram claiming the custody of the plaintiff; after due enquiry, the learned District Judge, dismissed the application observing that the 1st defendant is living with a concubine, Mahalakshmi; mother of the plaintiff alone is proper guardian of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is squandering the amount realized from the family property without providing any amenities to the plaintiff and her mother, while providing all amenities to his concubine Ramanamma, who became pregnant. After amen