This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in the suit O.S.No.120 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Guntur, dated 15.04.1997.

2. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. As this is a first appeal and the plaintiff is the appellant, the parties are described as they are arrayed in the suit only.

3. The plaintiff in the suit is Yallapi Rajamma @ Sarojanamma, w/o. Yallapi Sivaiah. She filed the said suit O.S.No.129 of 1988 against P. Narayana Rao, R. Krishnaiah pand M. Pushpa.

4. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the share of plaintiff in the suit schedule property with a direction to defendants 1 & 2 to put the plaintiff in possession of her 1/3rd share in the property. The plaintiff claims to be the wife of one Yallapi Sivaiah as described in para-4 of the plaint.

5. One Yallapi Mallaiah was the father and the head of joint family consisting of himself and three sons Yallapi Veera Badraiah, Yallapi Sivaiah and Yallapi Nagaraju. As Yallapi Mallaiah died intestate, the plaintiff states that her husband-Sivaiah acquired 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. As per the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff and Yallapi Sivaiah begot a daughter by name Yallapi Pushpa. As the said Pushpa and her husband-Yaliah died, her husband entire 1/3rd share in the property devolved on the plaintiff. Thus she became entitled to 1/3rd share in her own right.

6. As per the plaint averments, after the death of her husband and daughter, the plaintiff sold her 1/3rd share of property to one B. Subbaiah on 05.05.1970. Thereafter, she migrated elsewhere and lost touch with the property and her home town. She states that her purchaser-B. Subbaiah instituted a suit O.S.No.89 of 1977 for partition in the District Munsif Court, Venkatagiri for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. He lost the suit and filed an appeal in A.S.No.27 of 1980, which was also dismissed. He further filed Second Appeal No.904 of 1984 on the file of this Court, which was also dismissed. Coming to know all these facts, she filed the present suit for partition and for possession of her 1/3rd share and her specific case is that her daughter died long ago and that therefore, the third defendant in the said cases (the suit, first appeal and second appeal) is an imposter. She now seeks partition in her own right, as the Courts held that B. Subbaiah is not entitled to any share in the property, because the sale deed dated 05.06.1970 was signed by an imposter and not by the wife of Sivaiah.

7. Defendants 1 & 2 are the purchasers of the property. The defendants filed a written statement and denied all the allegations. They plead that defendant No.3 in the suit is not an imposter and is the daughter of Yallapi Sivaiah and Rajamma. They support the judgments passed in the suit O.S.No.89 of 1977 and state that the actual wife of Sivaiah by name Sarojanamma left the family house more than 30 years prior to written statement as she was mentally deranged. The first defendant asserts that defendant No.3, who is his vendor, is the real daughter and only available heir of Yallapi Sivaiah. He questions the execution of the sale deed in 1970 on this ground and also on the ground that the sale deed was registered in Nellore, but the property was situated in the Venkatagiri. The defendants case is that the present plaintiff is not the wife of Yallapi Sivaiah nor she is the mother of defendant No.3. She does not have any right of the property and the plaintiff is an imposter set up by the said B. Subbaiah, who was the unsuccessful plaintiff in the earlier suit. This is the crux of the defence.

8. After considering the entire matter, the lower Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that she is the widow of Yallapi Sivaiah, consequently, all other relief’s flowing from this were negatived. The purchase of the property by defendants 1 & 2 in the suit from defendant No.3