U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 27.8.1992 in OS No. 63 of 1987 and OS No. 115 of 1987 passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli, the 1st defendant in OS No. 115 of 1987 and plaintiffs in OS No. 63 of 1987 preferred AS No. 1999 of 1992 and TRAS No. 548 of 2014 respectively. OS No. 63 of 1987 is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that 1st plaintiff, but not the defendant, is the wife of late Nalla Pentaiah and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are their children and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of plaintiffs that Nalla Pentaiah of Peddapalli married 1st plaintiff in the year 1971 and begot plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the defendant has nothing to do with Nalla Pentaiah. However, in the amended pleadings, the plaintiffs mentioned that Nalla Pentaiah married one lady and after her death, married the defendant but their marital life was not harmonious and ultimately they took divorce in 1961 and later he married the 1st plaintiff and died in 1983. While so, the defendant filed a counter suit-OS No. 115 of 1987 claiming herself as the legally wedded wife of late Nalla Pentaiah and there was never any divorce between them and 1st plaintiff in OS No. 63 of 1987 who was their tenant, developed illicit intimacy with N. Pentaiah. 1st plaintiff was the wife of one Venkateshwar Raju of Mogilicherla. Thus she sought for declaration of her title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties after evicting the defendants.

2. The Trial Court conducted common evidence in OS No. 63 of 1987. P.Ws. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs. A1 to A18 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. DWs.l to 5 were examined and Exs. Bl to B3 were marked on behalf of defendant.

3. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence observed that there was no divorce between N. Pentaiah and Rukkamma (plaintiff in OS No. 115 of 1987); Haripriya (1st plaintiff in OS No. 63 of 1987) is concerned, it is observed she could not prove that she was the legally wedded wife of late N. Pentaiah and the evidence produced by her will not confer her the status of a legal marriage as she failed to prove the solemnization of marriage according to customary rites and ceremonies under Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act (for short "HM Act"); even assuming there was marriage between PW 1 (Haripriya) and N. Pentaiah the same is void in view of Section 5(1) of HM Act as there was no legal divorce between N. Pentaiah and Rukkamma under Section 13 of HM Act. Regarding alternative relief prayed for by the plaintiffs in OS No. 63 of 1987 that in the event the marriage of Haripriya with N. Pentaiah was held not valid still the children born to them would get a share under Section 16 of HM Act, the Trial Court observed such an alternative relief cannot be granted as the same was ill-founded as the said relief cannot be treated as ancillary relief to the main relief and granting such a relief would amount to changing the nature of the suit. The Trial Court further observed, the defendant i.e., Rukkamma failed to prove PW 1 earlier married one Venkateswara Raju of Mogilicherla. The Trial Court finally held, plaintiffs in OS No. 63 of 1987 were in unlawful possession of the properties acquired after the death of N. Pentaiah and ultimately dismissed their suit-OS No. 63 of 1987 and decreed OS No. 115 of 1987 with costs.

Hence, the instant appeals.

4. The parties in the appeals are referred as they were arrayed in OS No. 63 of 1987.

5. Heard arguments of Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. B. Kavita Yadav, learned Counsel for appellants and Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent.

6. (a) Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana, would firstly argue that in this case both the 1st plaintiff and defendant claimed themselves as wives of late N. Pentaiah. Plaintiffs in OS No. 63 of 1