M. Seetharama Murti, J.

The unsuccessful 3rd defendant in OS.No.2070 of 1987 had brought this second appeal assailing the decree and common judgment dated 22.07.2010 of the learned X Additional Chief Judge (Judge, Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in As.No. 477 of 2004 and AS.No. 604 of 2004 insofar as the common judgment related to the dismissal of AS.No. 477 of 2004 arising from the before-mentioned suit. The learned Additional Chief Judge while dismissing the said two first appeals had confirmed the decrees and common judgment dated 30.08.2004 of the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the aforementioned suit and OS.No. 2068 of 1989.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant and the learned senior counsel for the respondents 3 to 5/plaintiffs 3 to 5. I have perused the material record.

3. One Eswaramma (since died) and Siva Koti (since died) had originally brought the suit-OS.No.2068 of 1989 (Old OS.No.3413 of 1986) for a perpetual injunction against the defendants-Salamma and Yadagiri. The other suit-OS.No.2070 of 1987 was also brought by late Eswaramma and late Sivakoti against Salamma, the 6th respondent herein and the 2nd defendant Ch. Sharada. During the pendency of the former suit-OS.2068 of 1989, the plaintiffs 3 to 5 were brought on record as per orders dated 20.02.2003 in IA.No.248 of 2003. In OS.No.2070 of 1987 on the death of the 1st plaintiff-Eswaramma and the death of the 2nd plaintiff-Siva Koti, the plaintiffs 3 to 5 were brought on record as the legal representatives of Sivakoti as per orders dated 07.03.2003 in IA.No. 249 of 2003. In the said latter suit, the 3rd defendant i.e., the present appellant-Saraswati Bhagat was impleaded as per orders dated 18.06.1990 in IA.No.811 of 1989. On the death of the 2nd defendant-Ch. Sharada, the defendants 4 to 9 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant as per orders dated 07.03.2003 in IA.No. 249 of 2003. Plaintiff no. 2 in the present suits i.e., Siva Koti had earlier filed OS.No. 530 of 1985 against Sivalingam, Salamma, Yadagiri, Eswaramma and one Kamala Bai for partition of house property bearing nos. 14-3-130 and 14-3-129 situate at Goshamahal. In the said suit he had claimed that Sivalingam is his father and that the present subject property is in his possession and that of his mother-Eswaramma, but, did not ask for any relief in respect of the present subject property. Since the contentions raised by the contesting defendants in the said suit and the present two suits are one and the same, all the three suits were consolidated and evidence was recorded in OS.No. 530 of 1985 for disposal by a common judgment. After completion of joint trial, all the three suits were dismissed by a common judgment dated 24.06.1997. Against that common judgment, the plaintiff/s carried the matters in OS.No. 2068 of 1989 and 2070 of 1987 in appeals – AS.No. 292 of 1997 and 293 of 1997. The learned XII Additional Chief Judge had allowed the appeals which are filed against the present two suits and remanded both the suits for fresh disposal. However, no appeal was preferred against the decree dismissing the suit OS.No. 530 of 1985. After remand, in the present two suits, PW4 was examined and further documents in exhibits A27 to A34 were marked. No further evidence was adduced by the defendants. Therefore, the evidence recorded in OS.No. 530 of 1985 and the additional evidence that was recorded was taken into consideration for deciding the two suits, afresh. After remand, the trial Court had decreed both the present suits. As already noted, the first appeals in AS.No. 477 of 2004 and 604 of 2004 were dismissed confirming the common judgment of the trial Court, which was rendered after remand. The 3rd defendant in OS.No. 2070 of 1987 had preferred this second appeal only assailing the decree dated 22.07.2010 passed in AS.No. 477 of 2004 by the Court below whereby