( 1 ) IN as much as both the appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 21-11-1994 in OS No. 1123 of 1985 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, they can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE unsuccessful second defendant is the appellant in CCCA No. 65 of 1995. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in ccca No. 93 of 1995. To avoid confusion, it is expedient to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff laid the suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint a, B and C schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff in brief may be stated thus:

( 4 ) THE plaintiff and the second defendant are the son and daughter of the 1st defendant. They belong to Sunni sect. Late Akbari Begum was the mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant and the wife of the first defendant. She owned and possessed a house bearing No. 12-2-332/1 more fully described in schedule A, appended to the plaint and the movable properties mentioned in plaint B and C schedules and they are her matruka properties. There are no other heirs, except the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 of late Akbari Begum. She died on 12. 5. 1984 at Hyderabad leaving the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 behind her. As per Muslim Personal law, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share and defendants 1 and 2 are each entitled to 1/4th share. The plaintiff requested the defendants several times to partition the suit schedule properties. The defendants used to make false promises and that ultimately on 15. 2. 1985, the second defendant denied the status of the suit properties as the matruka properties. The first defendant in his individual capacity as the father obtained signature as a plaintiff on a stamp paper representing that it was required for The purpose of running the School. The plaintiff apprehends that the said paper might be used against the interest of the plaintiff by both the defendants. Hence the suit.

( 5 ) THE defendants resisted the suit by filing separate written statements. The case of the first defendant was that late Akbari begum did not leave any estate at the time of her death. During her life time she gifted the entire property covered by plaint. A-schedule to the second defendant in the year 1978 and it was accepted by the second defendant. The possession was also delivered to the second defendant. In the Municipal records, necessary mutation was carried out in the name of the second defendant. Since then the second defendant became the absolute owner and that late Akbari Begum gave an affidavit about the gift made in favour of the second defendant before the municipal authority for effecting necessary mutation proceedings and therefore, the suit schedule properties are not the matruka properties of late Akbari Begum. Late Akbari begum used to run a School in the plaint A schedule property under the name and style sun Rise . The second defendant is the head Mistress of the School since 1981 onwards and she has been managing the affairs of the school. The plaintiff was addicted to all bad habits and only to harass the defendants, he laid the false suit.

( 6 ) THE case of the second defendant inter alia in the written statement was also the same. It is her specific case that the plaintiff knew about the oral gift made by late Akbari Begum in her favour.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff filed a rejoinder denying the oral gift particularly when no date of the alleged gift was given in the written statement. It is his further case that he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties along with his father and mother and after the death of late akbari Begum. And he has been in possession till 14-10-1986 when he was dispossessed by defendants 1 and 2 by taking the law in to their own hands.

( 8 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died. After his death the plaintiff got the plaint amended claiming 2/3rd share. The second defendant filed additio