( 1 ) THESE two appeals are filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 against the common judgment and decrees in OS No. 57 of 1986 and OS No. 104 of 1990, dated 3-10-1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Mahaboobnagar. A. S. No. 17 of 1995 was filed in this Court against the decree in O. S. No. 57 of 1986 and whereas in view of valuation, A. S. No. 3 of 1995 was filed on the file of the District Judge at Mahaboobnagar and it was transferred to this Court as per orders in Tr. CMP No. 191 of 1995 dated 6-7-1996 and later numbered here as Tr. AS No. 1212 of 1999. Both the suits were filed by respondent No. 1. However, in view of his death, the legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos. 2 to 10.

( 2 ) OS No. 57 of 1986 is filed seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction and cancellation of registered partition deeds dated 30-4-1976 and 3-5-1976 in respect of plot with an area of 850 sq. yards out of Ac. 0-39 guntas in Survey No. 44, Subhas Nagar, Mahaboobnagar.

( 3 ) OS No. 104 of 1990 is filed on 21-9-1989 seeking declaration, title and recovery of possession of an area of 208 sq. yards out of Ac. 0-39 guntas in the same survey number.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff runs on the same plane in both the suits except the reliefs. The plaintiff claimed that he purchased an extent of Ac. 0-39 guntas in Survey No. 44 from one Mohd. Shareef under a registered sale deed and since then, he was in possession and enjoyment. Defendant No. 1 is the sister of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is the son of the first defendant. The first defendant was married to Abdul Shukur and resides at Hyderabad. The plaintiff has three other brothers and three sisters. The father is alive. The family members have already partitioned except one other plot and the plaintiff is living separately. Therefore, the suit property is the exclusive property of the plaintiff. There is no concept of joint family and no interest by birth amongst Muslims. As the things stood thus all the brothers and sisters, including the first defendant, colluded together and fabricated the partition deeds dated 30-4-1976 and 3-5-1976, to which plaintiff is not a party. It is only when the first defendant sought to sell, the plaintiff came to know on 5-7-1986 and he gave notice. The second defendant in the other suit, who is the brother s wife, sold the suit extent to the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 19-6-1986, in pursuance of which, the first defendant illegally occupied and started making constructions. Hence the suits.

( 5 ) THE defence in the two suit also proceeds on the same lines. It was denied that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner. The plaintiff had no income of his own on the date of purchase. The father Mohd. Ismail, was the head of the family and all members were living jointly till 1965. The father died on 21-6-1987. So, the father had purchased the same for the benefit of the family. The extent of Plot No. 44 is 4719 sq. yards to which, the father added another extent of 1281 sq. yards by purchasing the same from the Municipality. So by including the entire area, partition was effected under registered partition deeds dated 30-4-1976, 1-5-1976, 3-5-1976 and 4-7-1976 by the family members including the plaintiff. The plaintiff, his wife and children were allotted property. The plaintiff himself sold 1000 sq. yards, which was allotted under these partitions, under registered sale deed dated 2-4-1979. Further, the plaintiff himself applied to Government for prior permission to effect partition, whereupon, the Government accorded permission under Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienations) Act and acted upon. Having executed the deeds, the plaintiff cannot plead ignorance. Therefore, the relief claimed is barred by limitation. All the members have already sold their respective allotted properties and the purchasers have made constructions. In addition, the first defendant in the