THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU A.S.No.2322 of 1992 JUDGMENT: This Appeal Suit under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.5 of 1987 dated 31.3.1992 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Parvathipuram, whereunder the suit filed by the respondents for partition was decreed as prayed for. Appellants are defendants and respondents are plaintiffs in the suit. Respondents laid the suit for partition of Plaint A, B and C Schedule properties into (9) equal shares and allot and put the plaintiffs in possession of two such equal shares and for other reliefs. The parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit. The brief facts are that marriage between the first plaintiff and first defendant was solemnized at the house of first plaintiff’s father Mudadla Appalaswamy, Chinabondapalli village, according to Hindu rites and caste customs. At the time of marriage, the first plaintiff was presented with three tolas of gold by her parents and two tolas of gold by first defendant. The marriage was immediately consummated and they were leading a happy married life. The first plaintiff gave birth to second plaintiff and thereafter in the last week of December 1984, first plaintiff gave birth to a son (Ramakrishna), who survived for one year and died on 6.12.1985. Defendants 1 and 3 are the undivided sons of second defendant and they constitute Hindu Joint Family. The defendants’ family is one of the richest families in Chinabondapalli village. The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of second defendant. The first defendant is managing the entire household duties. While the first plaintiff and first defendant were leading conjugal life, the first defendant developed dislike towards first plaintiff. Thereafter, first defendant used to visit the village of fourth defendant, where his two sisters are residing and he fell in love with fourth defendant and he brought the fourth defendant to his house as concubine. Thereafter, first defendant forced the first plaintiff to give divorce and when she refused, she was harassed and treated cruelly and ultimately she was driven out of the marital house. First plaintiff along with her daughter were taking shelter in the house of her parents. The 1st defendant and the 4th defendant are living together. Thereupon, plaintiffs got issued a registered notice dated 13.5.1987 and the defendants issued a reply notice dated 21.5.1987 with false and frivolous allegations. According to the first plaintiff, the marriage between herself and first defendant is perfectly valid and that is the only marriage contract by the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled for substantial maintenance from the first defendant and also share in the plaint schedule properties. The first defendant filed his written statement, which was adopted by other defendants. The first defendant denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff. The first defendant also denied his marriage with first plaintiff. He further stated that he married the fourth defendant at her young age and as the fourth respondent did not attain puberty in time, she did not join the first defendant for conjugal life. Under those circumstances, the first plaintiff, who is of equal age to the first defendant and residing in the same street, with her allurements attracted the first defendant. When their illicit contact came to the knowledge of elders and with the intervention of elders, it was decided that the first defendant has to take the first plaintiff as his ‘Moganali Wife’ and since then they are leading conjugal life. Consequently, second plaintiff was born. No son was born to them and died on 6.12.1985. The second plaintiff, therefore, is not the legitimate child of first defendant. It was further stated that the plaint schedule was wrongly noted and the plaintiffs have given the survey numbers of all the Bhaviripudi families. The first defendant further stated in his written statement that he has no right, title or interest in any of the properties of his father, which are self-acquired properties of second defendant. The first plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the immovable properties. Both the plaintiffs cannot claim any maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Law. After amendment of the plaint, the defendants 1 to 3 have filed additional written statement contending that under the law, the second plaintiff is not entitled to any share. The plaint A, B and C schedule properties cannot be divided into nine equal shares and the plaintiffs are not entitled to two such shares. There is no coparcenary property and the properties are not in joint possession. Therefore, the fixed court fee paid is not proper. Both the plaintiffs are residing separately for the last so many years and admittedly, plaintiffs are out of possession. Further, the boundaries furnished are not in accordance with the orders passed in I.A.No.611 of 1991. Thus, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of first defendant? 2. Whether a son by name Ramakrishna was born to the first plaintiff and died on 6.12.1985? 3. Whether the second plaintiff is the legitimate daughter of the first defendant? 4. Whether the 4th defendant is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant? 5. Whether the plaint schedules are correct? 6. Whether the ‘C’ schedule properties are in existence? 7. Whether the plaint schedule properties are self acquired properties of the second defendant? 8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and maintenance as prayed for? 9. Whether the cause of action is true? 10. Whether the stridhana properties of Bhaviripudi Narayananamma, the mother of first defendant as well as the lands of Jamminaidu and Chinnam Naidu are also included in the plaint schedule? 11. To what relief? The following additional issues are framed as per Order dated 29.11.1988 and 27.11.1991: 1. Whether the court fee paid is correct? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to two shares out of nine shares of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties? 3. Whether there is Hindu Joint family having coparcenary properties? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties? 5. Whether the amended schedule is correct and it is in accordance with the order passed in I.A.No.611 of 1991. On behalf of plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of defendants, Dws.1 to 9 were examined and documents Exs.B1 to B16 were marked. Further, Exs.X1 to X5 were marked through witness. After appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 and 4 in favour of plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of first defendant and that fourth defendant is not the legally wedded wife of first defendant. In respect of Issue No.2, it was held that it is clinchingly proved that a son by name Ramakrishna was born to P.W.1 through D.W.1 in the year 1984 and died on 6.12.1985. Against Issue No.3, it was held that the second plaintiff is the legitimate daughter of first defendant. Against Issue No.6, it was held that all the movables, except movables found by the Commissioner in Item No.2 of plaint ‘B’ schedule tiled house, are the movable properties of the joint family of defendants 1 to 3. Further, against Issue No.7 and additional Issue No.3, it was held that it has been established that there is a Hindu Joint family of which the defendants 1 to 3 are members and that the plaint schedule properties are not the self- acquired properties of second defendant, but they are the coparcenary property of their family. Against Issue No.10, it was held that the properties of Jammunaidu and Chinnamnaidu are not included in the plaint schedule, but the lands of Bhaviripudi Narayanamma, mother of first defendant and third defendant and the wife of second defendant are included. Against Issue No.5 and additional Issue No.5, it was held that there is no evidence on record to show that the plaint ‘B’ schedule is not correct. D.W.1 did not say anything about the correctness or otherwise of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The amended schedule is correct and it is as per Orders in I.ANo.118 of 1991. Against additional Issue No.2, it was held that the joint family properties are liable to be divided into 12 shares and the plaintiffs are entitled to two such shares i.e. two shares out of 12 shares of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties. Insofar as additional issues 1 and 4 is concerned, it was held that it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are out of possession of the suit properties. Consequently the fixed court fee paid by the plaintiffs under Section 34(2) of A.P. Court Fee Act is proper and they need not pay advolorem court fee as contended by the defendants. Against issue No.9 it was held that the cause of action mentioned in the plaint is true. Against issue No.8, it was held in view of the findings recorded in the above issues and in view of the demand made by the plaintiffs for partition of the plaint schedule properties personally and by issuing the original of Ex.A1 lawyer’s notice, the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties. It was further held that having regard to the above evidence and facts and circumstances of the case and the status of the parties, the first defendant was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.150/- to the first plaintiff and Rs.100/- to the second plaintiff till they are put in possession of their shares in the joint family properties. Thus, the suit was decreed with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present Appeal is filed. The learned counsel for appellant strenuously contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate that even the evidence produced by the plaintiffs on the issue of valid marriage is quite discrepant and defective. P.W.1, first plaintiff and P.W.2, purohit alone spoke about the alleged marriage. The relatives, who were said to have attended the marriage, were not examined to corroborate with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Further, even PWs.1 and 2 did not mention about the ceremonies like Sapthapadi and invocation of fire or any other customary type of ceremonies that were observed to consummate the marriage. While P.W.1 states that her Lagnapathrika was written on white paper, P.W.2 states that it was written on a palmyra leaf. This discrepancy when considered in the context of failure of plaintiffs to mention about the ceremonies of the alleged marriage in the pleadings or in the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 unmistakably indicates the bogus nature of alleged marriage. Further, the learned Judge no doubt refers to the admission of marriage by the first defendant in his reply notice Ex.B15, but forgets that the first defendant only admitted that there was a nominal form of marriage and not a regular and ceremonious valid marriage between them. These defects in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 only support the case of first defendant that there was a nominal and not a legally valid marriage between them. The trial Court erred in holding that the defendants failed to establish a valid marriage between the first defendant and the fourth defendant. The Court erroneously disbelieved the overwhelming evidence of witnesses D.Ws.1 to 7 on this issue on flimsy, trivial and untenable grounds. The trial Court also erred in believing the evidence of P.W.1 that she gave birth to a son by name Ramakrishna through the first defendant. The Judge relied on the birth certificate Ex.A2, but failed to see that Ex.A2 mentions Appalaswamy and not first defendant as father of the child. Further, the informant of the alleged birth is the village Talari and not first defendant. According to the decision in AIR 1992 Madras 147, no presumption of law, regarding paternity of the infant can arise unless, there is evidence to indicate that the father was the informant. In the light of this decision, the trial Court’s finding that D.1 was the father of Ramakrishna is clearly wrong and erroneous. The trial Court also erred in holding that all the lands mentioned in ‘A’ schedule except those that are covered under Exs.B8 to 14 are the joint family properties of D1 to D3. The Court failed to see that P.Ws.1 and 3 who alone spoke on this issue did not give any details to indicate that D2’s father had any property in his possession. On the other hand, the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 7 indicates abundantly that all the above lands are the private and self acquired property of D2 and that D1 and D3 have no right or interest in the same during the lifetime of D2. The plaintiff’s claim for any share in the ‘A’ schedule properties must therefore fail. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the judgment passed by the trial Court and contended that absolutely there is no evidence whatsoever against any of the issues to come to a conclusion that the issues need to be decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants. The grounds raised in the appeal are all untenable and none of the findings recorded by the trial Court are liable to be disturbed. The appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned judgment and other material made available on record. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether there was valid marriage between 1st plaintif and 1st defendant and whether 4th defendant is the legally wedded wife of 1st defendant? 2. Whether plaintiff No.2 was legitimate daughter out of the marriage between 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant and whether a son (Ramakrishna) was born and died during their wedlock? 3. Whether ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ schedule properties are joint family and coparcenery properties and liable for partition? Point Nos. 1 and 2: First plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and stated in her evidence that first defendant married her about 18 years back at her parents house in Chinabondapalli village in Kanya form of marriage as per the Caste custom and Hindu rites and that one Sripathi Avadhani Sarma of Lakshmi Narayanapuram is the Purohit who officiated the marriage. That so many of their relations attended their marriage and that by the date of marriage, she attained puberty and that soon after their marriage, she joined her husband to lead conjugal life. P.W.2 Sripathi Surya Someswara Avadhani Sarma stated in his evidence that he is acting as Purohit of Chinabondapalli village and that he officiated the marriage between P.W.1 and first defendant about 18 or 19 years back at Chinabondapalli village, that after the marriage, they lead conjugal life and out of their wedlock, they begot a daughter and a son. He further stated that three more marriages were performed on that day and that he officiated those marriages under the same pondal with the assistance of three more purohits and that the first defendant was not married by the date of that marriage. In fact, P.W.2 is an independent witness, who was also examined as P.W.4 in M.C.No.31 of 1988 filed by plaintiff against the first defendant under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance. In M.C. as P.W.4 he stated that the marriage took place in Church street. This contradiction is marked as Ex.B4. P.W.2 has stated that he has not stated in the maintenance case as in Ex.B4, but he stated that the marriage took place in Cheruvu Veedhi. He further stated that there is no church steet in Chinabondapalli village. None of the witnesses examined on behalf of defendants has stated that there is a Church street in Chinabondapali village. Thus, the trial Court found that it was only a mistake and it was recorded as Church street instead of Cheruvu Veedhi. Therefore, Ex.B4 contradiction is not material to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 in his cross-examination stated that he studied 5th Class in Sanskrit School situated in Botuvari street, Parvathipuram and that after passing 5th Class, he joined in 6th class in High School and he studied upto 3rd form, therefore, he is competent to officiate the marriage. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that P.W.2 has not spoken about the ceremonies that took place at the time of alleged marriage cannot be countenanced. The ceremonies are essential for solemnization of marriage, such as, invocation of sacred fire, saptapadi etc., but in a case of this nature, those propositions have no place. In the case on hand, the marriage was not completely denied. Ex.A1 is the office copy of notice dated 13.5.1987 got issued by the plaintiffs through their Advocate to the defendants 1, 2 and 4 stating that there was lawful marriage between the first plaintiff and the first defendant about 16 years back and the marriage was immediately consummated. Ex.B15 is the reply notice got issued by the first defendant and others to the original of Ex.A1. In Ex.B15 it is admitted that a marriage was performed between P.W.1 and the first defendant at the instance of elders, but stated that the said marriage was not performed as per Hindu Rites and Caste Custom and as such it is not a legally valid marriage. The defendants in their evidence and written statement have not stated any thing regarding admissions made in Ex.B15. None of the witnesses examined on behalf of defendants including first defendant as D.W.1 has stated that when the alleged illicit intimacy between the first plaintiff and the first defendant came to light, the elders interfered and at their instance, a marriage was performed between the first plaintiff and the first defendant and that the said marriage was not performed as per the caste custom and Hindu rites. The defendants have not discharged their burden. They have not shown any evidence to show that there was no marriage at all and that first defendant and first plaintiff are only living together. Absolutely there is no evidence in this regard except their own self-serving statement. In fact, P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that there is a Lagna Pathrika and it was written on white paper, but not on a palmyrah leaf. But she stated in her deposition in M.C.No.31 of 1988 that Lagna Pathrika will be written on palmyrah leaves. Plaintiff did not file the said Lagna Pathrika. The trial Court also disbelieved the version of defendants that first defendant has married fourth defendant at their young age and as such, the marriage, if any, between the first plaintiff and the first defendant subsequently is not valid under law. Neither in Ex.B15 reply notice nor in the written statement, the period or the date or place of marriage between first defendant and fourth defendant was mentioned. In fact, the evidence of D1 to D7 is most inconsistent in this regard i.e. as to the marriage between first defendant and fourth defendant. In view of the same, the theory put forth by D.W.5, for the first time, for the early marriage of D.W.1 with 4th defendant was not believed by the trial Court and the evidence of D.Ws.1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 was also not reliable and even if it is reliable, is not sufficient to prove the marriage between D.W.1 and 4th defendant. Thus, the defendants failed to prove the marriage of D.W.1 with 4th defendant prior to the marriage with P.W.1. Against the findings recorded by the trial Court on these issues, no reliable evidence has been brought to the notice of this Court nor any contradictions which could have been believed by the trial Court have been cited. The defendants have not elicited any contra evidence in their cross- examination. Therefore, I hold that there was valid marriage between 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant and the alleged marriage between 1st defendant and 4th defendant is invalid, that plaintiff No.2 was letigimate daughter out of the marriage between 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant and that a son (Ramakrishna) was born and died during their wedlock. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court against Issues 1 and 4 cannot be disturbed. Accordingly, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. Point No.3: The contention of the plaintiffs was that the joint family consisting of defendants 1 to 3 is in possession of plaint C-Schedule movables, which was denied by the defendants. Plaintifs filed I.A. No. 416 of 1982 for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to make an inventory of the movables possessed by the family of defendants 1 to 3 and the same was allowed. Accordingly, the Advocate-Commissioner visited B-Schedule house on 27.6.1987 and made inventory of the articles found by him therein. Though the defendants have filed objections to the report stating that the movables mentioned in the Commissioner’s report belong to Narayanamma i.e. the mother of 1st defendant and the defendants have nothing to do with the same, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, except stating that the items, namely, gold jadagantalu weighing six annas, cash of Rs.2,500/-, Rs.90/-, Rs.360/- and Rs.600/- belong to the mother of 1st defendant, the defendants have not stated that the other items found by the Commissioner belong to the mother of 1st defendant. The defendants have not adduced any evidence to prove that ‘gold jadagantalu’ belong to Duvvana Laksmi, cash of Rs.500/- belongs to Bhaviripudi Laksmamma, gold Butta Jaunkalu weighing six annas were pledged by one Korada Sambamurthy with 1st defendant, cash of Rs.2050/- was kept with 1st defendant by Duvvana Venkatanaidu for his agricultural expenses, cash of Rs.90/- belongs to Narayanamma and cash of Rs.360/- belongs to Bhaviripudi Ramakrishna of the same village. No person named above was examined to prove that the said items belong to him/her, as pleaded by the defendants. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that all the movables except those found by the Commissioner in item No.2 of the plaint B-Schedule tiled house, are the movable properties of the joint family of defendants 1 to 3. Further, it was contended by the defendants that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.2 and, therefore, defendants 1 and 3 have no right, title or interest in any of the properties of defendant No.2. However, the evidence of PW-3, who worked as Village Munsif of China Bondapalli from 1973 to 1984 discloses that the family of defendants 1 to 3 is owning 9 acres 60 cents of wet and three acres of dry land in Chinabondapalli village and Ac.0-70 cents of dry land in Venkampeta and about 3 acres of wet land in Sundaranarayanapuram. Except suggesting that PW-1 is his maternal aunt and he was giving false evidence at the instance of one Gandi Sominaidu who is his junior paternal uncle by courtesy, which was denied by PW-3, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW-3 to discredit his testimony. On the other hand, the evidence of DW-1 is self-contradictory. At one stage, he stated that except the lands covered by Ex.B-5, which fell to the share of his father and the land covered by Ex.B-8 to B-14 sale deeds, their family has no other lands. At another stage, he stated that the lands covered by Ex.B-8 to B-14 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of his mother Narayanamma and they never treated these lands as their joint family properties. Again he stated that his mother and sister have got interest in their joint family properties. Further, in the cross-examination he categorically stated that they are a joint family and that except the land to an extent of Ac.1-60 cents in Chinabondapalli village, their family had no other lands and that the 2nd defendant and his brothers jointly cultivated the lands covered by Ex.B-5.