M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. These two first appeal suits, viz., C.C.C.A.No.38 of 2006 and C.C.C.A.No.225 of 2008 filed respectively by the defendants 1 and 2 together and the defendants 3 and 4 together are directed against the decree and judgment dated 19th September 2005 of the learned XXI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in O.S.No.329 of 1999 filed for partition of the plaint A, B, C, D, E, F and G schedule properties into five equal and equitable shares and allotment of one such separated share to the sole plaintiff.

2. Since both the first appeals arise out of a decree and judgment in one suit, the same were heard together as desired by the learned counsel for both the sides. Hence, this common judgment.

3. We have heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 in C.C.C.A.No.38 of 2006, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 3 and 4 in C.C.C.A.No.225 of 2008 and the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff/respondent in both these appeals. We have carefully perused the material record including the summary of written submissions filed on behalf of the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 and the p