D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

These appeals arise out of a common judgment pronounced in CCCA Nos.14 of 1987 and 57 of 1986 dated 27.04.2000. LPA No.194 of 2000 is filed against the orders in CCCA No.14 of 1987 and LPA No.14 of 2001 is filed against the finding in CCCA No.57 of 1986, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.

2. The said CCCAs arise out of two suits O.S.No.477 of 1983 and O.S.No.476 of 1983. O.S.No.476 of 1983 is a suit filed by one Smt. Gangamma against J. Sriramulu and 6 others. The suit is filed for a declaration that she is the owner of schedule-A to schedule-C properties being the daughter of one Railu Patel. She also sought for a direction to deliver the vacant possession of plaint A to C schedule properties and for other reliefs.

3. The defendants, who are the children of the brother of Railu Patel, have contested the suit raising various defences of which the main defences are that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Railu Patel and that Railu Patel also executed a registered Will dated 11.10.1976 in a sound state of mind in which the plaintiff is not given any share.

4. The second suit O.S.No.476 of 1983 was initially numbered as O.S.No.587 of 1982. The said suit is filed by the same plaintiff-Smt. Gangamma for a declaration that the Will dated 11.10.1976 allegedly executed by late Railu Patel be declared as null and void, inoperative and cancelled and for other reliefs.

5. In this case, the defendants filed a written statement contending inter alia among other things that the Will in question is a genuine Will and it is neither fraudulent nor fabricated. In a protracted trial in the suit Nos.477 of 1983 and 476 of 1983, 6 witnesses were examined for the plaintiff and 5 witnesses were examined for the defendants. Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked for the plaintiff and Exs.B.1 to B.3 and B.8 to B.29 were marked for the defendants.

6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge held by his common judgment dated 24.03.1986 that the plaintiff-Smt. Gangamma in O.S.No.477 of 1983 is not the daughter of late Railu Patel and dismissed the suit. Simultaneously, the trial Judge also held that the suit O.S.No.476 of 1983 is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the Will dated 11.10.1976 is declared as null and void.

7. Against the same, CCCA Nos.14 of 1987 and 57 of 1986 were filed. The learned single Judge of this High Court, vide his common order dated 27.04.2000, dismissed the appeal in CCCA No.14 of 1987 pertaining to O.S.No.476 of 1983. However, the learned Judge allowed the appeal in CCCA No.57 of 1986 pertaining to O.S.No.477 of 1983 by converting the suit into one of partition and the suit was remanded to the Court below for the purpose of determining the shares held by parties as tenants in common. This common order is impugned in these LPAs.

8. Heard the counsels, Sri K.K. Waghray for the appellants and Sri Damodar Mundra for the respondent. Since the said two LPAs are from a common judgment of a learned single Judge, the facts are also being looked into in the present two LPAs. We derive support from Smt. Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao and another, (1974) 2 SCC 492 and move particularly from B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh and others, (2016) 3 SCC 449.

9. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the properties acquired by Railu Patel are self-acquired properties. The evidence and pleadings make it clear that the properties are self-acquired properties.

10. The first Court initially decreed the suit O.S.No.476 of 1983 on the ground that the Will dated 11.10.1976 is not a valid and proper document. A reading of the judgment of the first Court shows that the first Court felt that the Will in question is not a genuine document for the reason that there were a lot of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will. The first Court took pains to explain and enumerate what it felt were the suspicious circumstances that were present in the Will.

11.