COMMON JUDGMENT:

These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree, dated 20.08.2004 in O.S.No.1212 of 2001 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.C.C.A.No.14 of 2006.

The deceased – 2nd appellant was the wife of late Ramana Murthy and the 1st appellant is their daughter. The 1st respondent is the mother, and respondents 2 and 3 are the brothers of Ramana Murthy. The appellants filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties and for a declaration that schedule ‘E’ schedule property belongs, exclusively to them.

It was pleaded that Sri Subba Rao, father of respondents 2 and 3 and late Ramana Murthy, worked as a Deputy Secretary in the A.P.Secretariat and has acquired different items of property during his life time. Schedule ‘A’ is a house at Desaipet Grampanchayat, Shantinagar, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. Schedule ‘B’ is an agricultural land of Ac.4.36 ½ cents in Nayunipally village, Guntur District. Schedule ‘C’ is a house at Gayatrinagar, Hyderabad, and schedule ‘D’ is a flat at Shankar Matt, Hyderabad. Schedule ‘E’ is in an FDR in post office. According to the appellants, schedule ‘A’ to ‘D’ were acquired mainly from the income of the Kartha of the family, late Subba Rao. As regards schedule ‘E’, the contention of the appellants was that the father of the 2nd appellant gave that amount at the time of her marriage with Ramana Murthy, it was handed over to Subba Rao and he kept the same in fixed deposit, in post office.

The suit was contested mainly by the 3rd respondent. He filed a written statement and respondents 1 and 2 thereafter adopted the same, by filing a memo. He pleaded that except ‘A’ schedule property, rest of them do not belong to joint family at all. According to him, ‘B’ schedule property was purchased by the 1st respondent, and that it is her Shridhan property. He pleaded that ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties belong exclusively to him and that the family has no concern with them. He further pleaded that ‘E’ schedule property represents the retirement benefits of Subba Rao.

The trial Court held that the schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties are held by the joint family and they are liable to be partitioned. It allotted 1/4th share to the appellants in them. ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties were held to be the exclusive properties of the 3rd respondent. The exclusive claim of the appellants on ‘E’ schedule property was rejected and it was held that the appellants are entitled to 1/4th share and respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/4th share each, in it.

During the pendency of the appeal, the 2nd appellant died. Her daughter, the 1st appellant, is trailed as her legal representative.

C.C.No.14 of 2006 is filed by the appellants feeling aggrieved by the denial of the relief, vis-à-vis ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties. C.C.C.A.No.339 of 2004 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendants 1 and 3 challenging the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court, vis-à-vis the ‘B’ schedule property.

Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the surviving appellant, submits that the findings of the trial Court, vis-à-vis ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties are untenable in law. He contends that the third respondent, who deposed as D.W.1, miserably failed to prove that he had any independent source of income and that there was also a tacit admission that late Subba Rao, the Kartha of the family, contributed funds for the purchase of those two items. He submits that, when questioned in the cross-examination, as to his salary, as on the date of the purchase of those two items, he feigned ignorance, and that the same establishes that he did not have the requisite funds to purchase the same. He contends, that the very fact that all the respondents, including the 3rd respondent, lived in the quarter, al