As these revisions are interrelated they are disposed of by this common order.

2. Facts, in brief, are: Revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.1 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, initially against her parents i.e. the defendants 1 and 2 and the subsequent purchasers as defendants 3 and 4, for a declaration that the suit schedule house was given to her by her parents at the time of marriage towards pasupu kunkuma and that the sale made by her father in favour of defendants 3 and 4 is null and void. As defendants 1 and 2 died during the pendency of the said suit, she brought the legal representatives i.e. her brother and sisters as defendant Nos.5 to 11. According to the petitioner-plaintiff her parents gave the suit house to her, at the time of marriage i.e. as early as in 1976 and the said house was let out to the husband of eleventh respondent and eleventh respondent with her husband is residing in the said house. It is also the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that the husband of eleventh respondent executed a lease deed in her favour and eleventh respondent and her husband are paying rents regularly and first defendant, the mother, was collecting the rents during her lifetime. As the said house was sold by first defendant in favour of defendants 3 and 4, revision petitioner was constrained to institute the suit in O.S.No.1 of 1995 with the aforesaid prayer. It was denied by respondents particularly, defendants 3 and 4 i.e. the subsequent purchasers. During the course of trial, revision petitioner-plaintiff exhibited Exs.A-17 to A-19, which are the lease deeds alleged to have been executed by the husband of eleventh respondent, but the trial Court though received them as evidence disbelieved the same, as the signature of the husband of eleventh respondent is not proved by any cogent evidence and accordingly the trial Court dismissed the said suit. Questioning the said judgment, revision petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Nellore. In the said appeal, the revision petitioner filed three interlocutory applications, viz., I.A.Nos.579, 580 and 581 of 2005 stating that she came to know about the institution of a suit in O.S.No.55 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur by the husband of eleventh respondent against his brother for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property therein, and hence a copy of the plaint therein, where the signatures of the husband of eleventh respondent is available, is to be summoned and received as additional evidence and also to send the said plaint copy to an expert for comparison of the said signatures with the signatures on Exs.A 17 to A 19. As the said applications were dismissed by the trial Court (sic. Appellate court) by different orders dated 28-11-2007 these revisions are preferred.

3. Heard Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. J. Kusumavathi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

4. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, that the petitioner is not aware of the existence of such documents when the trial was conducted in her suit and it is only after dismissal of the suit on the ground that the signatures of the husband of eleventh respondent are not proved and the trial Court rejected Exs.A-17 to A 19, she came to know about the institution of the suit in O.S.No.55 of 1990 by the husband of eleventh respondent and thus it necessitated her to file the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for production of additional evidence in the appellate Court. It is also contended that by summoning the said documents no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents-defendants.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4, Smt. J. Kusumavathi, opposed the said submissions stating that the pe