( 1 ) SINCE both these matters are connected and between the same parties in respect of similar subject-matter, they have been taken up together for disposal at the admission stage.

( 2 ) THE appellant in the second appeal is unsuccessful plaintiff, who seeks to assail judgment and decree in AS No. 117 of 1999, dated 8-4-2003 on the file of the vi Additional District Judge (Fast Track court), Rajahmundry, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and confirming the judgment and decree in OS No. 79 of 1987, dated 22-3-1999 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Peddapuram.

( 3 ) IN the CRP, petitioners are the rival claimants, who are aggrieved of the orders in IA No. 212 of 2003 in OP No. 172 of 1990, dated 26-8-2003 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, rejecting application filed by them seeking for withdrawal of the amounts as awarded in the reference.

( 4 ) HEARD Sri R. K. Suri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the second appeal and the respondents in the revision, and Sri Ch. Dhanunjaya, learned Counsel having filed caveat, appearing on behalf of the respondents in the second appeal and the petitioners in the revision.

( 5 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the main appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant seeking for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule land and for consequential injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 from making payment of compensation amount to any person other than the plaintiff.

( 6 ) THE case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she is fostered daughter of Karri ayyarma and Karri Puramma. Further, it is stated that the suit schedule property is self-acquired property of Karri Ayyanna and during his lifetime, he settled the said property in favour of his wife Karri puramma, as per the settlement deed dated 16-6-1961 and thereafter, Karri Puramma died on 20-3-1979 and so, the plaintiff is their only legal representative. Further, it is also claimed that the said Karri Puramma executed a will deed on 27-12-1976 in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, she is entitled for the same.

( 7 ) CONTESTING the suit claim, the case of the defendants is that of total denial in regard to any inheritance or succession by the plaintiff and also they challenged the correctness and validity of the will relied on by the plaintiff.

( 8 ) ON framing of issues and conducting regular trial wherein both sides let in their evidence in support of their rival contentions, the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the will deed relied on by the plaintiff, which is marked as Ex. A12, is not valid and further the Defendants 3 to 11 are entitled to the suit schedule property as legal heirs of late Kondal Rao who was the adopted son of late Karri Ayyanna and karri Puramma. In appeal preferred by the appellant herein, the lower Appellate court reiterated the same findings upholding the claim of the defendants. Thus, the entire claim of the defendants was on the basis that late Kondal Rao was the adopted son of Karri Ayyanna and karri Puramma and therefore, they, being heirs of late Kondal Rao, are entitled for the suit schedule properties and all other incidental benefits.

( 9 ) THE defendants had filed an application in IA No. 212 of 2003 in OP No. 172 of 1990 before the Trial Court for withdrawal of the amounts basing upon the judgment at the relevant point of time and claimed that they are entitled for the amount as determined in the reference. However, the Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground of pendency of this second appeal.

( 10 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously submitted that having regard to the specific pleas taken both alternatively, the Trial Court did not properly answer the same nor there is any proper consideration in this regard.

( 11 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents sought to repel the said contention and submitted that there is absolutely no proper foundati