L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. These two second appeals are inter-related. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. The Appellant as well as some of the Respondents are common to both the proceedings.

2. The Appellant filed O.S. No. 339 of 1998 in the Court IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, against Tanneeru Subbaratnamma, 1st Respondent in both the second appeals, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. She stated that she is in possession and enjoyment of the land for the past 20 years and in recognition of her rights, the Government issued DKT patta in her favour. She further pleaded that she raised eucalyptus garden in the assigned land. According to her, the close relations of the 1st Respondent were also granted DKT pattas over an extent of Acs.2.50 cents, each and they are in possession and enjoyment of the respective extents. Her grievance was that the 1st Respondent tried to interfere with her possession over the suit schedule property.

3. The 1st Respondent filed a written-statement, stating that her father-in-law Tanneeru Anjaiah was in possession of fairly large extent of land in Survey No. 388 of Marlapadu Village about 50 years back and that the suit schedule property is part of it. She further pleaded that the eucalyptus garden existing on the suit land was raised by her and that she made a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer, as regards her rights over the property.

4. The 1st Respondent, on the other hand, filed O.S. No. 201 of 1998 in the same Court against the MRO, Tangutur (for short ?the 2nd Respondent?), for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property therein. She pleaded that though the land was in the possession of her family for the past several decades, the 2nd Respondent was trying to dispossess her.

5. The 2nd Respondent filed a written-statement, stating that Anjaiah, the father-in-law of the 1st Respondent was in possession of the land in Survey No. 338, and that after his death, his son Guravaiah was assigned Acs.2.50 cents, his daughter, Suseela and Anjamma, were also granted pattas in respect of Acs.2.50 cents each. He further stated that in the neighbourhood of the said lands, the Appellant herein was assigned an extent of Acs.2.50 cents of land. He ultimately stated that the 1st Respondent is not at all in possession and enjoyment of any land in survey No. 338.

6. Both the suits were clubbed. Through a common judgment dated 06.07.2002, the trial Court decreed O.S. No. 339 of 1998 and dismissed O.S. No. 201 of 1998. The 1st Respondent filed A.S. Nos. 166 and 167 of 2002 in the Court of V. Additional District Judge, Ongole, against the judgments and decrees in O.S. Nos. 201 and 339 of 1998, respectively. The lower Appellate Court allowed both the appeals.

7. Second Appeal No. 83 of 2010 is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 167 of 2002. The Appellant herein is not a party in O.S. No. 201 of 1998, or A.S. No. 166 of 2002. However, she filed Second Appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 166 of 2002, by seeking leave of the Court for the reason that the said appeal was heard and disposed of along with A.S. No. 167 of 2002, and unless the second appeal is filed against it, the question of res judicata may arise.

8. Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that his client was granted patta by the Government in recognition of longstanding possession, and unless that patta was set aside by the competent authority, her right to remain in possession of the property could not have been denied. He contends that though the 1st Respondent is claiming rights in relation to the very property, no patta was granted to her. He submits that the lower Appellate Court has committed legal and factual errors in reversing the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court in the suits.

9. Sri M.R.S Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, on the other hand,