Both these matters are interconnected with each other and were directed to be heard together as parties in both the matters are common. Accordingly, I have heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant in the second appeal and for the petitioner in revision petition as well as Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent in both the matters.

2. The appellant in the second appeal and the 1st petitioner in revision petition is being referred to hereunder as ‘appellant’ for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts are as follows:

a) The appellant claims to be the owner of suit schedule house property which is a tiled house bearing M.No.44-12-48, situated at Paradesammapeta, Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada. She alleged that her husband died in 1961 and that she was blessed with four children; three daughters and one son. The said son appears as petitioner No.2 in C.R.P.No.6411 of 2004. The appellant alleges that she is an illiterate and not worldly wise and after the death of her husband, the management of all her affairs is being looked after by her brother, respondent herein in both the matters.

b) It is alleged that her brother owns a small house on