( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the common judgment in OS Nos. 4 and 5 of 1980 dated 29/03/1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram. O. S. No. 4 of 1980 was originally filed by Kusuma Krishnaiah against Chilakapati Gangamma, seeking partition of the schedule properties into two equal shares. Pending the suit, both the plaintiff and defendant died and the appellant was brought on record as the legal representative of the defendant and the respondents I to 3 as the legal representatives of the plaintiff. Similarly, O. S. No. 5 of 1980 was filed by Chilakapati Gangamma against Kusuma Krishnaiah seeking a declaration of her right and for recovery of possession of the suit land. On the similar lines as in O. S. No. 4 of 1980, the parties having died, the legal representatives were brought on record.

( 2 ) THE claim of the plaintiff in OSNo. 4 of 1980 is that the plaint schedule properties belonged to late Chilakapati Surayya, S/o Swamy, who executed a registered will deed dated 6-4-1958 in a sound and disposing state of mind and subsequently, he died on 18-7-1969. The original plaintiff is the sister s son and defendant No. 1 is the wife s sister s son of late Surayya and defendant No. 2 is the wife of Surayya. The properties being in joint possession and some attempts being made to secrete away, the suit was filed for partition.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 in the written statement claimed that he was adopted by the defendant No. 2 and late Surayya when he was a child and thus known as the adopted son of late Surayya and defendant No. 2. Surayya and the defendants are the members of the joint family and during the life time of Surayya itself some properties were given to the plaintiff like bullock-cart and bullocks etc. , after acknowledgment. However, by the date of the death of Surayya, none of those were existing. Since the defendant No. 2 has a right of maintenance in the schedule properties, the will deed dated 6-4-1958 contemplates that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 should enjoy the properties only after the death of Gangamma. Therefore, the rights of Gangamma in the properties have become enlarged and she became the absolute owner of those properties. She executed a will deed on 5-5-1972 bequeathing the properties to defendant No. 1

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 2 claimed that the first defendant was adopted by her and her husband long back and the will deed was executed on 6-4-1958 in a sound and disposing state of mind and it comes into operation only after the death of the second defendant. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that soon after the death of Surayya, he became entitled to the properties is not correct and no right vests during the life time of the second defendant. Late Surayya had already given some properties like bullock-cart, bulls etc. , to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and the schedule properties were not in possession of Surayya by the time of his death especially, items 1 to 3, 6, 10, 12 to 17. Later on, the second plaintiff filed a rejoinder denying the allegations made in the written statements and claimed that whatever properties of Surayya are there, those devolved equally on the first plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not acquire any rights in the properties and no life interest is created under the will. The second will dated 5-5-1972 was denied as the second defendant was not in a sound and disposing state of mind as she was suffering from paralysis, bedridden and in coma.

( 5 ) THE claim as made in OS No. 5 of 1980 by Chilakapati Gangamma almost runs on the self same lines as alleged in the written statements filed in OS No. 4 of 1980. It was reiterated that as per the will deed, the rights were enlarged into absolute one as per Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act as she had the right of maintenance over the properties. Therefore, the will executed by Surayya does not become operative. Since the defendant therein did not accede to the request