M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

1. As parties to these appeals are one and the same and the subject-matter of both these appeals is related, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. A.S. No. 999 of 1995 is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1995 in O.S. No. 40 of 1985 of the Subordinate Judge, Jagtial. Tr. A.S. No. 88 of 2010 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.2006 in O.S. No. 4 of 1999 of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla.

3. The parties will be referred to as per their array in O.S. No. 40 of 1985.

4. The facts leading to the filing of these suits are:-

(i) One Agina Ramalingam (hereinafter referred to as Ramalingam) is the husband of Varamma (plaintiff in O.S. No. 40 of 1985) and the father of Murali and Chandramouli (defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 40 of 1985). Ramalingam died in August, 1985.

(ii) Ramalingam had two brothers by name Viswanadham and Bhadraiah.

(iii) The 2nd defendant was originally married to one Pushpalatha on 5.5.1963. A year later disputes arose between them and they started living separately.

The suit O.S. 116 of 1967 and O.P. 12 of 1969

(iv) She filed as No. 116 of 1967 before the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar against Ramalingam, 2nd defendant and 1st defendant for past and future maintenance @ Rs. 125/- p.m. for recovery of jewels mentioned in "A" schedule to that suit, or Rs. 3,965/- being the value of the jewels and for creation of a charge on the properties mentioned in "B" schedule to that suit. The 2nd defendant filed O.P. No. 12 of 1969 against Pushpalatha before the same Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.

(v) A written statement was filed in O.S. No. 116 of 1967 by Ramalingam and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 pleading that there was a division of the property belonging to the family in which the 2nd defendant got only Rs. 9,000/- towards his share in cash and that a decree dated 2.3.1965 in O.S. No. 19 of 1965 was passed by the District Munsif, Sircilla to that effect. The certified copy of the plaint, written statement and decree in O.S. No. 19 of 1965 were filed as Exs.B1 to B3 in the suit O.S. No. 116 of 1967.

(vi) By a common judgment dated 28.2.1970 in O.S. No. 116 of 1967 and O.P. No. 12 of 1969, the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar held that it was the 2nd defendant who had deserted Pushpalatha and there was cruelty and desertion on his part towards her. He held that there was no evidence to show that the jewellery of Pushpalatha was taken away by 2nd defendant and she had also not issued any notice to him prior to filing of the suit and therefore the relief regarding jewellery cannot be granted. He fixed the maintenance @ Rs. 75/- p.m. from the date of decree. He also held that there was partition between Ramalingam and his sons; that 2nd defendant had filed a suit O.S No. 19 of 1965 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 300/- out of Rs. 9,000/- which fell to his share against Ramalingam and 1st defendant, that the judgment in that suit proves the partition between Ramalingam and his sons, therefore basing on the salary being received by the 2nd defendant, maintenance is being awarded. He did not grant any charge on "B" schedule properties in O.S. No. 116 of 1967.

The suit O.S. No. 170 of 1979

(vii) O.S. No. 170 of 1979 was filed before the District Munsif, Sircilla by Shankaraiah, the son of Ramalingam's brother Viswanadham against Ramalingam and one Maruthi, the son of Ramalingam's other brother Bhadraiah for partition and separate possession of certain properties mentioned in the schedule to it. The said suit ended in a compromise and a compromise decree dated 26.11.1979 was passed dividing the properties among Shankaraiah, Maruthi and Ramalingam. Under the said decree, an extent of agricultural land of Acs.2.13 Gts. in Sy.No.314/A, Ac.0.13½ Gts. in Sy.No.313 of Tippapur Village and Acs.13.78 Gts. in Sy.Nos.390, 434, 435 and 436 of Nampally Village fell to the share of Ramalingam.

The wills and Gift deeds