APHC010186632002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO FIRST APPEAL NO: 224 OF 2002 Between: 1. VISWANADHARAO SURYAPRAKASA RAO & 2 ORS, S/o Gopayya R/o Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari Dist. 2. Viswanadharao Venkateswara Rao, S/o Gopayya R/o Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari Dist. 3. Viswanadharao Srinivasa Rao, S/o Gopayya R/o Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari Dist. ...Appellants/Defendants 1 to 3 AND 1. VISWANADHARAO LAKSHMI NARASAMMA 5 ORS, W/o late Gopayya R/o Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintapudi, West Godavari Dist. 2. Ch Ammaji, W/o Chakrapani Peruru (V), Vajedu (M), Kothagudem, Khammam Dist. 3. Y Usha Rani, W/o Nagamalleswara Rao R/o Naidupet, Krishnalanka, Krishna Dist. 4. B Murali Krishna, S/o Ramamohana Rao Kistaram, Sattupalli, Khammam Dist. 5. B Kishore, S/o Ramamohana Rao Kistaram, Sattupalli, Khammam Dist. 6. B Aruna Kumari, D/o Ramamohana Rao Kistaram, Sattupalli, Khammam Dist. 7. Bathula Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Late Bathula Murali krishna, Aged about 42 years, Housewife, H.No.3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam, Khammam District. 8. B Rammohan Rao, S/o. Late Bathula Muralikrishna, Aged about 21 years, H.No. 3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam, Khammam District. 9. B Chandra Prakash, S/o. late Bathula Muralikrishna, Student, Aged 19 years, H.No. 3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam, Khammam distrct. Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are brought on record as LRs of deceased respondent No.6 vide court order dated 12.08.2024 in A.S.M.P.No. 1940 of 2017 in A.S.No. 224 of 2002. ...Respondents/Plaintiff/Defendants Appeal against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.20/1994 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, at Eluru dated 24-1-2001 IA NO: 1 OF 2004(ASMP 12675 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including passing of final decree pursuant of the preliminary decree dated 24-1-2001 in OS No. 20 of 199 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge Eluru pending disposal of Appeal IA NO: 1 OF 2017(ASMP 1938 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 2559 days in bringing the petitioners / proposed respondents, the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.6 i.e., Sri Bathula Muralikrishna as respondents 7 to 9 in the above IA NO: 2 OF 2017(ASMP 1939 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased set aside the abatement of the above appeal in respect of the deceased 6th respondent in the interest of justice IA NO: 3 OF 2017(ASMP 1940 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased bring the petitioners / proposed respondents, the legal represenatives of deceased Respondent No.4 1. Bathula Vijaya Kumari, W/o.late Bathula Muralikrishna, Aged 42 Years, Occ: Housewife 2. Bathula Rammohan Rao, S/o.late Bathula Muralikrishna, Aged 21 Years, Occ: Student 3. B.Chandra Prakash, S/o.late Bathula Muralikrishna, Aged 19 Years, Occ: Student all are R/o.H.No.3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli Mandalam, Khammam District as respondents 7 to 9 in the above appeal Counsel for the Appellants: PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI Counsel for the Respondents 6 to 9: CH B R P SEKHAR The Court made the following: Judgment: The appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24-01-2001 in O.S.No.20 of 1994 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds into seven equal shares and to allot two such shares to the plaintiff, mesne profits and for costs of the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows: It is pleaded that the deceased Viswanadharao Gopayya was plaintiff’s husband. Defendants 1 to 3 and the deceased Venkata Lakshmana Rao are sons and the 4th defendant and the deceased Venkata Satyavathi, who is the mother of defendants 5 to 8, are the daughters of plaintiff and Gopayya. Out of them, Venkata Lakshmana Rao died unmarried and intestate in or about 1974 and Venkata Satyavathi died intestate in the year 1976 leaving behind the defendants 5 to 8 as her legal heirs. The plaintiff was given cash of Rs.50,000/- besides gold jewellery weighing 25 sovereigns and silver weighing 100 tulas in addition to sare samans worth Rs.25,000/- while at the time of her marriage with Gopayya and she entrusted all such properties to Gopayya for improving his properties and plaint schedule properties. After Gopayya died intestate in an accident in the year 1981, the 1st defendant took management of the plaint schedule properties and started to enjoy the income realized from the plaint schedule properties for himself, due to which the plaintiff demanded for partition of the same and issued legal notice dated 15-9-1993 to the defendants 1 to 3 and she impleaded the defendants 2 to 8 as parties as they have not cooperated with her in getting the above said relief and that the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into seven equal shares by metes and bounds, allotting two such shares to her and for other reliefs. 3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant are as follows: It is contended that the 1st defendant’s father Gopayya got Ac.10-00 only in the partition that took place among him and his brothers and the remaining properties were acquired by Gopayya with his contribution. He, his brothers and Gopayya partitioned the joint family properties in 1972 under a registered partition deed and since then, respective shares have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and the properties fell to the share of Gopayya have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and 3rd defendant, and he never managed such property. The plaint schedule properties are incorrect and item Nos.1 and 4 of plaint-B schedule are his self- acquired properties and plaint-F schedule properties were purchased by him with his own money and the joint family has nothing to do with it and plaint-E schedule properties have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. It is further contended that he is always ready and willing to cooperate with the plaintiff in partitioning the properties of Gopayya and he got issued a reply notice dated 10-11-1993. The plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 are residing in item No.5 of plaint-B schedule and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. The defendants 2 to 8 remained ex parte in the early stage of the proceedings in this case. 4. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether plaint schedule is correct ? (2) Whether the partition between late Gopayya and his sons is true and correct and binding plaintiff ? If so, what the properties fell to the share of late Gopayya ? (3) To what share plaintiff is entitled and in which of the plaint schedule, plaintiff has got share ? (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any mesne profits ? If so, to what amount ? and (5) To what relief ? 5. When the matter became part heard before the trial Court, the defendants 5 to 8 got their ex parte order set aside. The 6th defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 5, 7 and 8 by filing a memo, contending that he and the defendants 5, 7 and 8 are the legal heirs of their mother Venkata Satyavathi and she was given Ac.3-58 cents in R.S.No.17/2 of Lakshmi Narasimhapuram Village of Chintalapudi Mandal towards pasupu-kumkuma by her parents. Gopayya and his sons took a contention in the relevant proceedings initiated before the A.P. Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru that the above said landed property was given to Venkata Satyavathi towards pasupu-kumkuma and when their contention was negatived, they preferred an appeal in L.R.A.No.243/1990 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru, which was allowed by it by virtue of its judgment dated 10-10-1991 upholding the giving of such property to Venkata Satyavathi towards pasupu-kumkuma and the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are not entitled to claim the above said property. When the defendants 1 to 3 are squatting upon the said property, which is item No.12 of plaint-A schedule, he and the defendants 5, 7 and 8 as the heirs of Venkata Satyavathi, filed the suit in O.S.No.156 of 1996 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru, for declaration of their title over the same and for consequential relief of possession along with other reliefs. In view of the above circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of item No.12 of plaint-A schedule and that he and the defendants 5, 7 and 8, being the legal heirs of deceased Venkata Satyavathi, are entitled to have a share in other joint family properties of plaint-A to F schedules. 6. The trial Court has also framed the following additional issue: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have possession of plaint AA-1 schedule properties exclusively for herself as prayed for ? 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record and hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned trial Judge awarded preliminary decree of partition in part by granting 1/6th share in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also awarded future profits in respect of the plaintiff’s 1/6th share in the aforesaid properties. The trial Court further ordered defendants 1 to 3 to deliver possession of plaint AA-1 schedule properties to the plaintiff. The relief of partition in respect of the other properties as sought by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. 9. Aggrieved against the said finding, the defendants 1 to 3 have filed the present first appeal. The plaintiff has not filed any appeal or cross- objections. 10. During the pendency of appeal suit before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the appeal against the 1st respondent/ plaintiff and the 2nd respondent/4th defendant was dismissed for default vide Court order dated 09-02-2011. Respondents 7 to 9 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 6th respondent/8th defendant vide Court order dated 12-8-2024 in A.S.M.P.No.1940/2017. 11. Heard Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 and Sri Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 9. 12. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the trial Court grossly erred in giving entitlement to the respondents 1 to 6 herein, daughter and heirs of the deceased daughter of 1st respondent of equal shares with that of sons i.e. appellants 1 to 3 though they are not entitled to have any share in law. He would further contend that the trial Court grossly failed to observe that Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, bars a female Hindu i.e. 1st respondent to file the suit for partition of dwelling house contained in the plaint-B schedule properties. He would further contend that the trial Court erred in awarding 1/6th share each to the defendants 4, 5 and 6/ daughters and heirs of deceased daughter of 1st respondent as they are not entitled to claim any share in the properties in view of their marriage much prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (A.P. Amendment Act), 1986. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the trial Court failed to observe that the partition suit insofar as dwelling house is concerned, the suit is not maintainable and he would further contend that the learned trial Judge, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the partition suit in part and that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 9 would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit for partition in part and there is no need to interfere with the findings as arrived by the learned trial Judge. 14. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the suit for partition insofar as dwelling house is not maintainable ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the future profits in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties ? (4) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge needs any interference ? and (5) To what extent ? 15. Point No.1: Whether the suit for partition insofar as dwelling house is not maintainable ? The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the suit for partition insofar as dwelling house is not maintainable in view of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act bars a female heir to get the share in a suit for partition of the dwelling house in plaint-B schedule properties. The appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 3. The defendants 2 and 3 are remained set ex parte and they have not challenged the claim of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 before the trial Court. He specifically admitted in his evidence in cross- examination itself that item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are their ancestral properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are the house properties in plaint-B schedule properties. D.W.1 further admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that he had no objection to have partition the item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also to render accounts with regard to the rentals collected by him. 16. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has been repealed. After repeal of Section 23, a female heir got a right to seek partition. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is held to be prospective in operation with retrospective effect. The law is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma1, wherein a Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows: “56. The daughter is treated as a coparcener in the same manner as a son by birth with the same rights in coparcenary property and liabilities. However, the proviso of sub-section (1) contains a non obstante clause providing that nothing contained in the sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of the property which had taken place before 20-12-2004.” The prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring new rights and the retrospective statute operates backward and takes away or empowers vested rights acquired under existing rights. The retrospective statute is the one that does not operate retrospectively. It operates in future. However, its operation is based upon the character or statute that arose earlier. Characteristic or event, which happened in the past, is requisite which had been drawn from antecedent events. Under the amended Section 6, since the right is given by birth i.e. an antecedent event and the provisions operate concerning claiming rights on and from the date of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is amended with effect from 05-9-2005. 1 (2020) 9 SCC 1 17. In the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), a Full Bench of the Apex Court further held as follows: “129. ………………………………………… (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2006 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. (iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2006. (iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. (v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.” Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has been omitted so as to remove the disability of female heirs contained in the section. It sought to achieve larger public purpose. As stated supra, in the case on hand, the plaintiff is none other than the mother of defendants 1 to 3, the father of defendants 1 to 3 died intestate and the plaintiff/mother is claiming share of her husband property. It is admitted case of both the parties that the plaintiff’s husband i.e. Gopayya and his sons partitioned the joint family properties on 17-01-1972 under the original of Ex.A-1. It is the specific case of plaintiff that the house properties i.e. item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are not mutated. The 1st defendant/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross- examination itself that item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are their ancestral properties and the said items are not included in the partition, which was taken place among the father and his sons in the year 1972. For the aforesaid reasons, the suit for partition is maintainable. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is not at all applicable to the present case. 18. Point No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties ? The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff and Viswanadharao Gopayya are wife and husband, respectively and defendants 1 to 3 and deceased Venkata Lakshmana Rao are the sons, and the 4th defendant and deceased Venkata Satyavathi are the daughters of plaintiff and Gopayya. It is undisputed by both sides that Venkata Lakshmana Rao died unmarried and intestate in or about 1974 and Venkata Satyavathi died intestate in the year 1976 leaving behind her the defendants 5 to 8 as her legal heirs. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that Gopayya and his sons partitioned the joint family properties on 17-01-1972 under the registered partition deed i.e. under the original of Ex.A-1. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by giving cogent reasons, held in the judgment that item Nos.1 and 4 of plaint-B schedule properties are self-acquired properties of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff did not challenge the said finding, no appeal or cross-objections are filed by the plaintiff, therefore, the said finding attained finality. 19. To prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the plaintiff. The plaintiff also relied on the evidence of P.W.2 and relied on Ex.A-1 registration extract of partition deed executed among the plaintiff’s husband and sons in the year 1972 i.e. on 17-01-1972, the same is undisputed by the 1st defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 are also not disputed the same. Ex.A-1 clearly reveals that plaint-AA1 schedule properties fell to the share of Venkata Lakshmana Rao in the said partition under Ex.A-1. It is undisputed that Venkata Lakshmana Rao died intestate and unmarried and that the plaintiff, being Class-I heir, plaintiff is entitled to the share of deceased unmarried son, by name Venkata Lakshmana Rao. The learned trial Judge, by giving cogent reasons, held in the judgment that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of plaint-AA1 schedule properties. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the learned trial Judge. 20. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A-1 clearly goes to show that plaint-A schedule properties fell to the share of Gopayya under a registered partition deed. The said Gopayya was none other than the plaintiff’s husband. As stated supra, the defendants 1 to 3 and deceased Venkata Lakshmana Rao are the sons, and the 4th defendant and deceased Venkata Satyavathi are the daughters of plaintiff and Gopayya. The defendants 2 and 3 remained set ex parte. The 1st defendant contended in the suit that the 1st defendant alone contested the suit. The present appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 3, and the remaining defendants in the suit proceedings have not filed any appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. 21. The evidence on record goes to show that plaint-A schedule properties fell to the share of Gopayya i.e. plaintiff’s husband under a registered partition deed way back in the year 1972. The 1st defendant/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that plaint-A schedule properties fell to the share of his father, and defendants 2 and 3 are remained set ex parte. As noticed supra, by giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly held that since one of the sons of plaintiff and Gopayya, by name Venkata Lakshmana Rao died unmarried and intestate in or about 1974, the plaintiff/mother of the said Venkata Lakshmana Rao being Class-I heir, is entitled to the share of Venkata Lakshmana Rao and she is entitled for possession of the said properties from the defendants 1 to 3. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is entitled for partition in respect of item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and the plaintiff is also entitled to the possession of plaint-AA1 schedule properties from the defendants 1 to 3. 23. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are ancestral properties and those properties are not included in the registered partition deed that has taken place among Gopayya and his sons in the year 1972. In order to prove the same, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and also relied on the evidence of P.W.2. The 1st defendant/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are their ancestral properties and the said items are not included in the partition that took place in the year 1972. He further admitted that he had no objection to have partition of item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also to render accounts with regard to the rentals collected by him in respect of the said properties. By giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly held in the judgment that the plaintiff is also entitled for partition of item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also 1/6th share was allotted to the plaintiff in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered. 24. Point No.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the future profits in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties ? It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she is entitled for future profits in respect of her share in the joint family properties. It is the specific contention of the 1st defendant that he is not in possession of joint family properties and the plaintiff is in possession of the same. 25. As seen from the material on record, the 1st defendant himself admitted in his evidence that he has no objection to render accounts with regard to the rentals collected by him in respect of item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties. It is in the evidence of plaintiff/P.W.1 that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and she is entitled to the share of her deceased 2nd son Venkata Lakshmana Rao and also heir of her husband. She further deposed that her sons have been completely neglected her and she is a sick person and she has not even provided to medical aid and she is having a share in the properties and she was neglected by her sons. The plaintiff also relied on Ex.A-2 legal notice said to have been issued on 15-9-1993. In Ex.A-2, it is reiterated that the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the family properties from the date of death of the plaintiff’s husband. In Ex.A-2 legal notice itself, it was contended by the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the family properties. Exs.A-3 to A-5 goes to show that the defendants 1 to 3 received Ex.A-2 legal notice. In Ex.A-2 legal notice, it is asserted by the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the family properties. To deny the contents in Ex.A-2 legal notice, no reply notice has been issued by the defendants 1 to 3. The 1st defendant alone contested in the suit proceedings. The defendants 2 and 3 remained set ex parte. None of the defendants including the 1st defendant gave reply notice to deny the contents in Ex.A-2 legal notice. As stated supra, the defendants 2 and 3 are remained set ex parte. 26. The defendants 1 to 3, who received Ex.A-2 notice before filing of the suit, did not even choose to send a reply notice denying the contents of legal notice and the 1st defendant did not even deny the possession of the family properties. The defendants 1 to 3 have not explained the reasons for not responding to Ex.A-2 legal notice. This circumstance goes a long way in showing that the defendants 1 to 3 are admitting the contents of Ex.A-2 legal notice. As stated supra, the defendants 2 and 3 are remained set ex parte, but the 1st defendant pleaded in the written statement itself that he issued a reply notice, dated 10-11-1993, to the legal notice under Ex.A-2 said to have been issued by the plaintiff. But, except taking the said formal plea in the written statement, the 1st defendant did not even place any material either before the trial Court or before this Court to show that he issued a reply notice to deny the contents of Ex.A-2 legal notice. 27. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she lost her husband in a road accident and she being a co-sharer having lost her husband unexpectedly in a road accident, therefore, it is very difficult for maintaining family properties, the 1st defendant, who is elder son was available when the plaintiff is not in a position to manage the family properties, it is quite natural to entrust the management of properties to the 1st defendant being an elder surviving son in the family. Furthermore, the 1st defendant/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that he has no objection to have partition the item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also to render accounts with regard to the rentals collected by him. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is entitled to future profits in respect of her 1/6th share in item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered. 28. Point No.4: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge needs any interference ? After careful consideration, the trial Court had adequately appreciated the evidence on record and there is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. I believe the findings arrived by the trial Court are correct and no justifiable reasons have been shown by the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 for arriving at different conclusions. I agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court. 29. Point No.5: To what extent ? In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24-01-2001, in O.S.No.20 of 1994 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal. REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. VISWANADHARAO LAKSHMI NARASAMMA 5 ORS, W/o late Gopayya R/o Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintapudi, West Godavari Dist. 2. Ch Ammaji, W/o Chakrapani Peruru (V), Vajedu (M), Kothagudem, Khammam Dist. 3. Y Usha Rani, W/o Nagamalleswara Rao R/o Naidupet, Krishnalanka, Krishna Dist. 4. B Murali Krishna, S/o Ramamohana Rao Kistaram, Sattupalli, Khammam Dist. 5. B Kishore, S/o Ramamohana Rao Kistaram, Sattupalli, Khammam Dist. 6. B Aruna Kumari, D/o Ramamohana Rao Kistaram, Sattupalli, Khammam Dist. 7. Bathula Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Late Bathula Murali krishna, Aged about 42 years, Housewife, H.No.3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam, Khammam District. 8. B Rammohan Rao, S/o. Late Bathula Muralikrishna, Aged about 21 years, H.No. 3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam, Khammam District. 9. B Chandra Prakash, S/o. late Bathula Muralikrishna, Student, Aged 19 years, H.No. 3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam, Khammam distrct. Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are brought on record as LRs of deceased respondent No.6 vide court order dated 12.08.2024 in A.S.M.P.No. 1940 of 2017 in A.S.No. 224 of 2002. 10. One CC to SRI. PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI Advocate [OPUC] 11. One CC to SRI. G ANANDAM Advocate [OPUC] 12. One CC to SRI. CH B R P SEKHAR Advocate [OPUC] 13. One CC to SRI. . Advocate [OPUC] 14. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT VGKRJ DATED:23/10/2025 ORDER AS NO. 224 OF 2002