These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are between the same parties, and the subject-matter of the proceedings is almost the same. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in C.M.A.No.296 of 2006. The 1st appellant and the 2nd respondent are the sons, and the 2nd appellant is the daughter of late Galib Saheb. The deceased-1st respondent is their daughter of late Galib Saheb. The deceased-1st respondent is their mother. The 3rd appellant is the son of the 1st appellant. Galib Saheb was employed in the Police Department and is said to have taken voluntary retirement, when he was working as Assistant Sub-Inspect or. He died in the year 1966.

The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.135 of 1982 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kavali, against the appellants herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. She pleaded that the purchased the property with her own funds, through a sale deed, dated 23.11.1959, and her eldest son, the 1st appellant, is trying to encroach into the property highhandedly. Subsequently, the plaint was amended, and the relief of recovery of possession was incorporated. It was urged that the 1st appellant had occupied a portion thereof, during the pendency of the suit. In his written-statement, the 1st appellant pleaded the his mother, the 1st respondent, did not have any independent resources or income of her own, and that the property was purchased with the income of his father, but in the name of the 1st respondent.

Even while O.S.No.135 of 1982 was pending, the 1st appellant filed O.S.No.652 of 1982, in the same Court, against respondents 1 and 2 and the 2nd appellant, for the relief of partition of items of property mentioned therein, which in turn are the subject-matter of the pending suit. The pleadings in O.S.No.135 of 1982 were repeated in this suit, with slight modifications, except that the array of parties changed. During pendency of the suits, the 1st respondent, i.e. the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.135 of 1982, and 1st defendant in O.S.NO.652 OF 1982, DIED. The 2nd respondent came on record in the place of the plaintiff in O.S.No.135 of 1982, and in the other suit he was already a party.

Apart from claiming rights as legal representative of the deceased-1st respondent, the 2nd respondent, relied upon a deed of settlement, dated 20.07.1982.

Though the suits were contemporaneous, between the same parties, and in relation to same property, they were tried separately. Through separate judgments, dated 10.10.1998, the trial Court decreed O.S.No.135 of 1982 and dismissed O.S.No.652 of 1982. It was held that the deceased-1st respondent is the owner of the said property and that the appellants have no right vis-à-vis the same. A.S.Nos.8 of 1989 and 54 of 1988 were filed against the decrees therein, before the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Kavali. Through separate judgments, dated 24.04.1996, the lower appellate Court, remanded the matters to the trial Court. On the ground that the validity of the deed of settlement was not considered by the trial Court, it was directed to frame additional issue as regards proof and validity o the deed of settlement and to permit the parties to adduce evidence, in relation to the additional issue. C.M.A.No.1254 of 1996 is filed against the judgment in A.S.No.54 of 1988, initially, S.A.No.462 of 1996 was filed against the judgment in A.S.No.8 of 1989. Thereafter, it was converted into a Miscellaneous Appeal and numbered as C.M.A.No.296 of 2006.

Sri M. Venkatnarayana, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court erred in treating the suit schedule properties as self-acquisition of the deceased-1st respondent. He contends that though the sale deed was executed in favour of the 1st respondent, it was purely a benami transaction, inasmuch as the funds were provided by the husband, late Galib Saheb