( 1 ) BOTH these Regular First Appeals arise out of the common judgment. The parties and the subject-matter involved in both the appeals are common. Common arguments have been advanced by both sides. Hence, common judgment.

( 2 ) WE have heard the arguments of both sides. In view of the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeals, the following points would arise for consideration : (I) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court impugned under these appeals is legal and valid ? (ii) Whether there is any need for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court ? (iii) What judgment or decree ?

( 3 ) THE parties, in the course of this judgment, are referred with respect to their ranking in the trial Court, for the purpose of convenience.

( 4 ) SMT. Nalini Venkatesh, learned counsel for plaintiffs, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly goes to show that the judgment and decree of the trial Court impugned in R. F. A. No. 435/1991 is illegal and invalid so far as it relates to negativing the claim of the second plaintiff. The material on record clearly shows that the second plaintiff has successfully proved her title and possession in respect of 'b' schedule properties. The learned Civil Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record, had arrived at a conclusion that the second plaintiff had succeeded to the estate of deceased Smt. Shivalingamma and in spite of the same, the learned Judge had erred in holding that the second plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs only on a technical point that the second plaintiff had not amended the plaint after being transposed in the original suit. She also contended that the material on record clearly shows that Smt. Shivalingamma, on whom 'b' schedule properties had been settled under a registered partition deed dated 31-12-1966, had died in the year 1974, leaving behind the second plaintiff as her only legal heir and the second plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the 'b' schedule properties, exercising her proprietary and possessory rights in respect of the said properties as absolute owner. She also contended that on the material on record, the learned Civil Judge ought to have, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs even in respect of 'b' schedule properties in favour of the second plaintiff. The approach of the learned Civil Judge in this regard has been totally erroneous. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing R. F. A. No. 435/1991. The learned counsel further contended that the judgment of the trial Court impugned under the appeal so far as it relates to decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs so far as 'a' schedule properties is concerned is legal and valid. The material on record clearly shows that the first plaintiff, as legally wedded wife of Gavisiddappa, had succeeded to the estate of her husband and 'a' schedule properties had been settled in favour of first plaintiff under the registered partition deed dated 31-12-1966. She also contended that in pursuance of the partition deed, the first plaintiff has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit 'a' schedule properties. The defendant, an erstwhile member of the joint family, who has nothing to do with "a' schedule properties, had been casting clouds on the title of the first plaintiff in respect of the said properties and as such the first plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of her title in respect of 'a' schedule properties and also for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the said properties and also for possession of item No. 5 of 'a' schedule. The learned Civil Judge, after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, had arrived at the right conclusion. The material on record also shows that the claim of the defendant in this regard had been totally based on the plea of adverse possession and he had utterly failed to prove the said plea and consequently, the learned Civil Judge had turned down the claim of the defe