Krishna Rao, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the Judgment of Obul Reddi, j.in Appeal No. 300 of 1965. This judgment had confirmed the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole, in O.S. No. 39 of 1957. The facts are not in dispute and may briefly be stated in so far as they are relevant for purposes of this appeal.
(2.) There was one Chilla Venkatappaiah, who died in 1912 leaving behind him, a widow Manemma, a son Ramaiah and three daughters Janikamma, Thulasamma and Lakshmamma. Ramaiah died in 1928 unmarried. On Ramaiab's death, Manemma, his mother succeeded to his estate as a limited owner under Hindu law. By and under Exhibit A-1 dated 9th August, 194.2, Manemma surrendered the estate which she inherited from her son Ramaiah in favour of her three darghters Kota Lakshmamma, Panchagnula Thulasamma and Lanka Janikamma. The Said deed contained recitals to the effect that the three daughters should be in enjoyment of the property freely with absolute rights as 'Hakkudars' and from then onwards they should have Absolute rights in the surrendered property Five days after the execution of Exhibit A-1 i.e. on 14th August, 1942 the three daughters had separately executed three maintenance deeds, Exhibits A-3 to A-5, in favour of their mother. On the same day they had also executed a registered partition deed, Exhibit A-2, partitioning the properties which were surrendered to them under Exhibit A-1. Thereafter the properties were being enjoyed separately by the three sisters. Thulasamma, one of the sisters, died on 15th May, 1945. Janikamma, the plaintiff, filed the suit on 20th June, 1957 impleading her sister Kota Lakshmamma as the 5th defendant for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two shares and for allotment of one share to her and the other to the 5th defendant her sister. Profits past and future were also asked for. It was contended in the plaint that by reason of the partition deed; Exhibit A-2, three sisters never intended to give up their rights of survivorship inter se, that the partition deed did not and could not put an end to such rights of survivorship and that on Thulasamma's death the plaintiff and the 5th defendant had become jointly entitled to the suit schedule properties. The twelve year period from the date of Thularamma's death expired during the summer recess and the suit was filed on the reopening day of the Courts. It is not disputed that the suit is in time. After the death of Thulasamma, defendants 1 to 3 sons of Thulasamma, came into possession of the properties which fell to her share at the partition evidenced by Exhibit A-2. They began to deal with the property as if it were the absolute property of their mother which devolved on them on her death. It was alleged in the plaint inter alia that defendants 1 to 3 who are the sons of Thulasamma got into wrongful possession of the properties on the death of their mother and that they even sold item 3 of the plaint schedule to the 4th defendant. Defendants 6 to 11 to the suit were impleaded on the footing that they were tenants and that they were in possession of the plaint schedule properties.
(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 in the main contended that by reason of Exhibit A-2, the partition deed, among the sisters, the rights of survivorship were put an end to. The partition deed conferred an absolute right on each of the sisters on each of them agreeing to relinquish their rights of survivorship.;