16. The defendant set up plea of separate partition, while admitting the original status as members of joint family, it is for her to prove the alleged partition that allegedly took place in the year 1969 and alleged allotment of residential house to late Gangareddy towards his share in the schedule property and allotment of Ac.900 and odd Mango garden to the 1st plaintiff in lieu of his share in the residential house in addition to other property. To substantiate her contention, she herself was examined as D.W.1 and testified that the earlier partition, which took place in the year 1969, between the 1st plaintiff and late Gangareddy, who died subsequently in the year 1985 and since the date of partition, late Gangareddy was in possession of residential house till his death and after his death the defendant succeeded the estate of late Gangareddy and she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. She also examined the tenants- D.Ws.5 and 6, who categorically testified about payment of rent to late Gangareddy during his life time and after his death to the defendant. In the entire cross-examination of D.Ws, 5 and 6, nothing was elicited to impeach their trustworthiness. No doubt, D.Ws.5 and 6 are only tenants, but they cannot be termed as interested witnesses since they are not going to get any benefit out of this litigation. Therefore, the trial Court rightly believed the testimony of D.Ws.5 and 6 that they are paying rent to late Gangareddy from 1969 till 1985 and after his death to the defendant. But, before partition in the year 1969, the rent paid to the 1st plaintiff. If really, defendants 5 and 6 are interested, they would not have testified that they paid rent to the 1st plaintiff prior to 1969. Hence, the conclusion arrived by the trial Court that D.Ws.5 and 6 are not interested witnesses do not call for interference by this Court.
