1. The appellants in both the appeals are the defendants in O.S.No.19 of 1985 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.118 of 1991. They were unsuccessful before the trial Court in both the suits and accordingly filed these two appeals. As the plaintiff allegedly sold away the properties to the respondents 2 and 3, they were brought on record as party-respondents in A.S.No.2312 of 1996.

2. Since the contentions urged by both parties are one and the same in both the cases, the learned trial Court disposed of the suits by a common judgment. The appeals also, therefore, will be disposed of by the following common judgment as both the suits are between the same parties in respect of the very same subject matter and common questions of law and fact would arise for consideration.

3. For the sake of convenience in the common judgment, the parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants as they were originally arrayed in O.S.No.19 of 1985.

4. Madapati Chittemma, the plaintiff, is the sister of Velagala Venkata Reddy, who is no other than the father of the defendants. The plaintiff purchased the schedule land which is an extent of Ac.1-00 cts. out of Ac.4-16 cts. from the defendants and their father under a sale deed dated 25-6-1976. The plaintiff has been residing in Kavitam village, whereas the suit schedule property is situate in the village of the defendants. After purchase of the property by the plaintiff, her brother Venkata Reddy assured her that he would look after the cultivation and give the produce to the plaintiff. Accordingly, he cultivated the suit land till his death on 24-4-1982 on behalf of the plaintiff and was paying her the net produce after deducting the expenses and land revenue. After his death, the defendants assumed possession of the property on behalf of the plaintiff and started cultivating the same. But they stopped paying the produce to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff demanded for delivery of the produce, the defendants made a proposal to the plaintiff to sell away the land to them at the prevailing market value. The plaintiff did not agree for the said proposal. On that, the relations between the parties became strained. The defendants did not pay the produce from 1982-83 to 1984-85 inspite of the repeated demands from the plaintiff. Moreover, they filed O.S.No.496 of 1984 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tanuku for a permanent injunction. On that, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 19 of 1985 for ejection of the defendants from the schedule property and to direct them to deliver the plaint schedule property and for profits with the aforementioned averments.

5. Whereas, the defendants filed O.S.No.118 of 1991 for a declaration that the plaint schedule land of an extent of Ac.1-90 cts. in R.S.No.266 of Aravalli village is their joint family property and for consequential injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their possession and enjoyment.

6. The version of the defendants is as follows:

During the lifetime of their father, they nominally executed a sale deed in respect of the suit land of an extent of Ac.1-00 cts. out of Ac.4-16 cts. under the threat of land acquisition and to claim more compensation in the event of the land being acquired by the Revenue authorities for providing house-sites to the landless poor persons. Their version is that the sale deed was sham and nominal, no profits were paid to the plaintiff at any point of time. The 1st wife of the 1st defendant is Jaya Lakshmi, who is no other than the daughter of the plaintiff. She died in the year 1977 leaving behind her the 1st defendant and a male child. After some time, the 1st defendant remarried and begot two sons through his 2nd wife. It is contended by the plaintiff in the above suit that the 1st defendant did not remarry till the end of 1981 though his 1st wife Jaya Lakshmi died in 1978. The plaintiff used to look after the son of Jaya Lakshmi. While so, by the end of cultivation year 1982-83, the brot