( 1 ) THESE petitions have been filed seeking to review the common judgment dated 27-9-1999 delivered in second Appeal Nos. 239 and 40 of 1997.

( 2 ) BRIEF history: One Dr. Mandakini naik, Susheela Naik and G. K. Naik are sisters and brother. Claiming that the suit schedule property (House bearing Muncipal no. 1-11-254 together with mulgies and a well situated in Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, hyderabad) is her exclusive property by virtue of a will dated 8-5-1962 executed in her favour by her father late Krishnaji Naik, mandakini Naik filed OS No. 133 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Subordinate judge s Court, Rangareddy District, saroornagar, Hyderabad, against her brother G. K. Naik alleging that she is the owner of the said property and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same right from the date of execution of the will. While so, her brother (G. K. Naik) has no manner of right, title or interest in the suit property and he is interfering with her peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property by instigating the tenants, who are in occupation of some portion of the suit property, not to pay rentals to her. It is alleged that on 21-6-1982, G. K. Naik has demolished the wall situated in the suit property. So, she filed the suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property restraining her brother G. K. Naik from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

( 3 ) THE defence set up by G. K. Naik in his written statement is that the will is a fabricated one and no such will was ever executed by their father in favour of mandakini Naik. The suit property is the joint family property and he is entitled to equal share along with Mandakini Naik. So, mandakini Naik is not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit.

( 4 ) G. K. Naik later filed a suit - OS no. 54 of 1984 on the file of the same court in respect of the very same property against his sisters-Mandakini Naik and susheela Naik, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction, taking the very same pleas which he had taken in his written statement filed in Mandakini Naik s suit. It is also his contention in his suit that Mandakini Naik was trying to raise a wall in the suit property separating the mulgies from the house. So, he filed the present suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining his two sisters from alienating the suit properties to third parties.

( 5 ) MANDAKINI Naik filed written statement in the suit basing her claim on the will and denying the title of her brother g. K. Naik to the suit property. She reiterated her stand which she had taken in her suit (OS No. 133 of 1983 ).

( 6 ) ISSUES were framed separately in both the suits. In OS No. 133 of 1983, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for in the plaint? (2) Whether the interference alleged by the defendant is true? (3) To what relief? in OS No. 58 of 1984, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? (2) To what relief?

( 7 ) COMMON trial was conducted in both the suits. On behalf of Mandakini naik, four witnesses were examined. She got herself examined as PW1. While so, on behalf of G. K. Naik, he himself was examined as DW1 and none others were examined on his behalf. Exs. A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of Mandakini naik. On behalf of the defendant G. K. Naik, exs. Bl to B26 were marked. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the trial court held that the will (Ex. A1) and also another will (Ex. A2) have been proved by pw1 (Mandakini Naik) to have been executed by late Krishnaji Naik in the light of the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 as required under law; that Mandakini Naik came into possession of the suit property through exs. Al and A2. The trial Court ultimately held as follows:"the circumstances shown in the light of exs. Al and A2 the plaintiff in OS N