- (1.) The defendants in O.S. No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram, being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 19-4-1991 preferred the present appeal. Respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, died and the legal representatives were brought on record. Appellants 5 and 6, the then minors, were declared as majors by virtue of an order made by this Court dated 27-11-2006 in A.S.M.P. No. 2335 of 2006.
(2.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S. No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram.
(3.) The plaintiff, Addanki Narayana Murthy, who is no more as already referred to supra, filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share and to grant Rs. 1,833-33 paise as past profits from 10-9-1985 to 1-10-1988 as against the defendants and for future profits and costs. The learned Judge, on the respective pleadings of the parties, settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, D.Ws. 1 to 6, marked Exs. A-1 to A-7 and Exs. B-1 to B-15 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and further the learned Judge also granted decree for past profits at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month from 10-9-1985 to 1-10-1988 totalling to Rs. 1,833-33 paise from the first defendant and the plaintiff also is entitled to future profits at the same rate of Rs. 50/- per month from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession. The claim of the plaintiff for past and future profits from the other defendants had been disallowed as they are no way concerned with the half share in the property and accordingly the suit was decreed with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred the present appeal.;