1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree, dated 04.02.2004, in O.S.No.158 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and defendant No.3 is the sister of the plaintiff. All of them are children of late Subramaniyam Achary and Muni Chandramma. The suit schedule property is a house bearing No.51-323-48, owned by Muni Chandramma. She died on 13.02.1989. Defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the house. The plaintiff pleaded that her another brother, defendant No.2, was given an item of property and defendant No.3, her sister, relinquished her share in the schedule house, inasmuch as she held substantial properties. With these pleadings, the plaintiff claimed half share in the house, conceding the other half to defendant No.1.

4. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 remained ex parte. Defendant No.1 alone contested the suit. He pleaded prior partition in the family and stated that the suit schedule property has fallen to his share. Apart from that, he has raised the plea of adverse possession.

5. Through its judgment, dated 04.02.2004, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for and allotted half share each, to the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 filed A.S.No.36 of 2004 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. Through its judgment, dated 02.04.2008, the Lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and modified it to the effect that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to one-fourth share each, in the suit schedule property. While the plaintiff filed S.A.No.81 of 2009 feeling aggrieved by the reduction of her share from half to one-fourth, defendant No.1 filed S.A.No.180 of 2009, feeling aggrieved by the allotment of share to other parties to the suit.

6. Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the lower appellate Court was not justified in reducing the share of the plaintiff from half to one-fourth. He contends that the trial Court assigned cogent reasons while arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property and that none except defendant No.1 contested the suit. In addition, the learned counsel opposes the second appeal filed by defendant No.1. According to him, the plea of adverse possession or ouster cannot be countenanced in a suit for partition.

7. Sri A. Rama Subbaiah, learned counsel for defendant No.1 on the other hand, submits that partition in the family has taken place much before the suit was filed and the plaintiff herself is the beneficiary thereof. He contends that part of the same property, which abuts the suit house, was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and that she cannot file a suit for partition once again. He further submits that defendant No.1 has perfected his title to the property, through adverse possession and the plaintiff cannot be given any share in it. The learned counsel contends that the right, if any, of the plaintiff stood ousted on account of her acts and omissions. He places reliance upon some precedents.

8. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming half share in the suit schedule property. According to her, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not entitled for any share in view of the reasons mentioned in the plaint. The suit was contested by defendant No.1 alone. He took the plea of prior partition and in the alternative, the one of adverse possession.

9. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration.

(1) Whether late Muni Chandramma the mother of plaintiff and D1 to D3 acquired government poramboke site and constructed the suit building?

(2) Whether plaintiff and D1 are in joint possession of the suit property?

(3) Whether the Court fee paid by plaintiff is not correct?

(4) Whether t