1. These first appeals are filed against common judgment dated 19.02.2001 in OS.No.52 of 1994 and OS.No.8 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. As these are first appeals, the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as in the lower Court only.

2. The brief facts of the cases are that:

OS. No. 52 of 1994 is filed by the plaintiffs against defendant Nos.1 to 4 for partition of the plaint properties into 12 equal shares and for allotment and separate possession of five such shares to them, for future profits and also for costs of the suit.

OS.No.8 of 1998 is filed originally as OS.No.465 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ongole, by the plaintiffs for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and relatives from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties therein and also for costs of the suit.

3. The averments in the suit OS.No.52 of 1994 are that the plaintiffs are a father and daughter. Defendant No.1 is the younger brother of the first plaintiff. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of the first plaintiff and defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is the undivided son of defendant No.1. Sri Venkata Subbaiah, who is the father of the first plaintiff and defendant No.1, died about three (3) years prior to the suit. Their joint family owns the plaint A schedule immovable properties and plaint B schedule movable properties. The undivided 1/3rd share in the joint family property of late Sri Venkata Subbaiah devolved equally upon the first plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. Thus, the plaintiffs became entitled to 5/12th share and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 together entitled to 5/12th share, while the defendant Nos.3 and 4 each are entitled to 1/12th share in the suit properties, consequent to the death of Sri Venkata Subbaiah.

4. The first plaintiff came to know that prior to the death of his father Sri Venkata Subbaiah, a fraudulent and nominal sale deed dated 16.01.1990 was brought into existence in respect of the western Ac.4.50 cents of land in item No.1 in respect of entire items 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule lands for Rs.99,500/- in favour of defendant No.2. Late Sri Venkata Subbaiah was very old and since two years prior to his death he was not mentally sound and was not in disposing state of mind. Neither the defendant No.2 nor his maternal grand- father Sri Venkaiah had the capacity to pay the huge sale consideration of Rs.99,500/- under the said sale deed to Sri late Venkata Subbaiah. The said sale transaction was kept secret as the entire suit property was joint in possession of the first plaintiff and the defendants and late Sri Venkata Subbaiah. The said sale transaction is null and void and is non-est in the eye of law. The said sale document is also not acted upon. The plaintiffs are entitled to ignore the said sale transaction. Hence, the suit was filed for partition.

5. Defendant No.1 in his written statement contended that the suit schedule properties are not ancestral properties; that items 1 and 3 of the plaint A schedule properties originally belong to Sri Idupulapati Chenchaiah, who died and that all his properties devolved upon his only daughter Smt. Audemma. On the death of Smt. Audemma intestate, all her properties devolved upon her two daughters namely Mahalakshmamma and Parvathamma and her only son Sri Venkata Subbaiah. Smt. Mahalakshmamma sold her 1/3rd share in item-1 of the plaint A schedule property to him under a registered sale deed dated 02.05.1980 and Smt.Parvathamma sole her 1/3rd share in item-1 of plaint A schedule property to defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed in the year 1990. Sri Murripaudi Venkata Subbaiah sold his 1/3rd share in items 1 and 3 and item-2, which was his self-acquired property to defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 16.01.1990 and that all the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of himself and defe