These two appeals arise under identical circumstances and out of the proceedings in the same suit. Hence, they are being disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in A.S.No.741 of 2010.

2. The 1st respondent is the son of the deceased-2nd respondent, by name Venkatadri. O.S.No.200 of 1953 was filed in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, by the 1st respondent through his mother, against the 2nd respondent, for the relief of partition, separate possession and mesne profits of the suit schedule properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 21.03.1955. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the mother of the 1st respondent, were not known. After he attained the age of majority, the 1st respondent initiated final decree proceedings by filing I.A.No.1313 of 1982. A final decree was passed and not only the properties were divided by metes and bounds, but the possession thereof was also delivered to the 1st respondent, on the one hand, and the 2nd respondent, on the other hand. Mesne profits were ascertained on an application filed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed E.P.No.142 of 1995 for recovery of mesne profits of about Rs.1,70,000/-.

3. The 4th respondent, by name, i.e. Kavuru Venkata Ramanamma, is the second wife of the 2nd respondent and appellants 1 and 2 are their children. By placing reliance upon gifts as well as Will, four items of property i.e. 1 (a), (b), 2 and 3 of the E.P. Schedule were attached. The appellants filed E.A.No.466 of 1998 with a prayer to raise attachment in respect of item No.4 of the E.P. schedule. According to them, that property was gifted to them by the 2nd respondent through a document, dated 20.04.1971. It was urged that they have accepted the gift and ever since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Similar application, being E.A.No.468 of 1998 was filed by the 4th respondent for raising attachment in respect of items 1(a), (b), 2 and 3 of the E.P. schedule properties. She pleaded that the said items were gifted to her under two separate documents dated 15.03.1982 by the 2nd respondent. The applications were opposed by the 1st respondent. The executing Court dismissed the applications through separate but similar orders, dated 23.09.2003. Hence, these two appeals.

4. Sri Joshula Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that by the time items 1 to 4 were gifted by the deceased-2nd respondent, they were his absolute properties and once they have been gifted in favour of the appellants and respondent No.4, they are not available to be proceeded with, in the execution proceedings. He contends that the Executing Court did not appreciate the matter from the correct perspective.

5. Sri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the so-called gifts in favour of the appellants were made much before the final decree was passed i.e. when the properties have remained joint and they are not tenable in law. He contends that the gift deeds were executed only with a view to defeat the claim for mesne profits and the trial Court has rightly rejected the claim petitions.

6. The suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent way back in the year 1953 resulted in passing of a preliminary decree within two years. However, the final decree was passed only on 12.12.1994. The division of the properties between himself and his father i.e. the 2nd respondent took place and each party was delivered the possession of the respective shares.

7. In addition to claiming the relief of partition, the 1st respondent prayed the relief of mesne profits also. An enquiry into that was conducted and that ultimately the amount was ascertained at Rs.1,23,560/-. To recover that amount, he filed E.P.No.142of 1995. By that time, the 2nd respondent died and the appellants and the 4th respondent are in possession and enjoyment of the property that fell to the share of the 2nd res