1. These two Second Appeals arise out of a common suit. Hence, they are heard and disposed of together.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. One Katta Venkateswarlu is the common ancestor of the parties. He died leaving behind his wife - defendant No. 4, their son - defendant No. 1 and two daughters- defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No. 1 through his first wife. The marriage of the plaintiff’s mother with defendant No. 1 was performed on 17-05-1979. In the year 1981, the plaintiff’s mother deserted defendant No. 1 and started living separately. On 21-06-1982, the plaintiff was born. She has filed O.S. No. 51 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, for partition of the suit schedule properties comprising 4 items and allotment of 1/6th share therein to her.

4. Defendant No. 4 filed the written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos. 1 to 3. It was pleaded that there was no joint family status among the plaintiff and the defendants; that after the marriages of defendant Nos. 1 to 3, defendant No. 4 and her husband Katta Venkateswarlu lived separately and carried on cultivation at Timmalapuram Village of Kudithini Post, Bellari District, that Katta Venkateswarlu died on 09-01-2005, that items 3 and 4 of the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of late Katta Venkateswarlu in which defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no right, that Katta Venkateswarlu executed a will on 26-05-1999 in sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing items 3 and 4 of the schedule properties in favour of defendant No. 4, that after the death of her husband, defendant No. 4 became absolute owner of items 3 and 4 on the strength of the will, that item No. 1 belongs to defendant No. 1 and that it is his self acquired property; that item No.2 does not belong to the defendants or Katta Venkateswarlu as it belongs to Addagada Navarathamma, who died three years back, and that the said Addagada Navarathamma is the paternal aunt of defendant No. 4. The defendants have, thus, pleaded that the plaintiff has no right in the suit schedule properties and that therefore, she cannot claim partition of the same and allotment of share therein.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties of D1 to D3 and their deceased father?

2. Whether the Will, dated 26-05-1999, is true?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule properties as prayed for?

4. To what relief?”

6. In support of the plaintiff’s case, she got herself examined as PW.1 and did not adduce any documentary evidence.

7. On the defendants side, besides examining defendant No. 4 as DW.1, they have examined DWs.2 and 3 and got Exs.B.1 to B.5 marked.

8. The trial Court found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit by directing division of the suit schedule properties into 16 equal shares and allotment of half share to the plaintiff out of 5 such shares of defendant No. 1 besides mesne profits.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed A.S. No. 79 of 2010 in the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole. The said appeal was partly allowed by setting aside the decree of the trial Court to the extent of item No. 2. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the decree of the trial Court in all other respects. Feeling partly aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed S.A. No. 1444 of 2011 and the defendants filed S.A. No. 1015 of 2012.

10. I have carefully heard the arguments of Mr. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned Counsel for the defendants (appellants in S.A. No. 1015 of 2012), and Mr. Subba Rao Korrapati, learned Counsel for the plaintiff (appellant in S.A. No. 1444 of 2011).

11. Mr. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, has strenuously contended t