A. Rajasheker Reddy, J.

1. As the parties, schedule of properties and issues involved in both the appeals are one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.

2. Both these appeals are filed by the appellant aggrieved by the Common Judgment and decree dated 31.07.2014 in A.S.Nos.55 and 62 of 2010 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nellore wherein the lower appellate Court allowed the above appeals by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2010 passed in O.S.No.31 of 1998 by the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows:

The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the suit O.S.No.31 of 1998.

The plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.31 of 1998 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore for partition of his half share in the plaint schedule properties consisting of items Nos. 1 to 4 by metes and bounds and put him in possession of the same against the defendants stating that the 1st defendant is the own brother of the father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff died when he was three months' old. The mother of the plaintiff by name Subbamma brought him up and was looking after the family affairs. The 1st defendant, being the next elder of the family, has been maintaining the affairs of the plaintiff's mother, as she being a lady. The mother of the plaintiff was living with the family of the 1st defendant as her husband died. While so, the mother of the plaintiff along with 1st defendant purchased item Nos. 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deeds dated 10.03.1958, 29.07.1963, 27.01.1968 and 30.10.1971 and ever since the purchase, the mother of the plaintiff i.e., Subbamma and 1st defendant had been in possession and enjoyment in their own right jointly. After the plaintiff has grown up, he used to cultivate the said lands along with the 1st defendant. Hence, the mother of the plaintiff and 1st defendant are having equal shares. In the year 1989, Subbamma died intestate leaving behind her the plaintiff as her sole legal heir and her estate was devolved upon him including the half share in the plaint schedule property. After the death of Subbamma, the plaintiff and 1st defendant have been jointly cultivating the suit lands. Since the plaintiff is in need of money to perform the marriage of his younger daughter, he intended to sell a portion of the schedule mentioned property within his half share. The 1st defendant refused to do so, as such, the plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant to partition the schedule mentioned properties into two equal shares and to put him in possession of is half share. The 1st defendant did not cooperate for partition. Hence, the suit.

4. In response to the plaint averments, the 1st defendant filed written statement denying the very relationship between himself and the father of the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the item Nos. 1 to 4 of plaint schedule properties are purchased by the 1st defendant alone with his hand earnings, he paid sale consideration and he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule lands, ever since his purchase and he is in possession and enjoyment of the lands. It is stated that after the death of the plaintiff's father, his mother had no shelter of her own, thereby the 1st defendant provided shelter in his family and maintaining them. During their stay, the 1st defendant developed illicit contact with the mother of the plaintiff. It is also stated that he obtained sale deeds in his name and also in the name of mother of plaintiff Subbamma, but her name was nominally shown in the sale deed. It is stated that as on the date of purchase of schedule properties, the mother of the plaintiff had no capacity to contribute for payment of sale consideration. That after the plaintiff had grown up, the mother of the plaintiff was residing separately and that she had no right or share over the