1. These two appeals are preferred against the common judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Bagalkot in R.A.Nos.129/2001 and 130/2001 dated 08.07.2004.

2. The brief facts leading to the appeals are as follows:

One Mukundappa was the propositus. He had two children by name Hanamant and Varewwa through his wife Santavva. Hanamant was married to one Sulochana and they had a daughter by name Mala. The said Hanamant had his second wife by name Isarabai. She had begotten a son by name Vitthal.

3. Original Suit No.248/1997 was filed by the aforesaid Santavva-the wife of late Mukundappa and her daughter Varewwa for declaration that the Will executed by Mukundappa in favour of defendant No.2, namely, Vitthal is outcome of fraud, undue influence and therefore the said Will is not binding on their share and for declaration that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and the plaintiffs are entitle to 2/3rd share therein. The other legal heirs of Mukundappa, who were arraigned as defendants No.1 to 4 resisted the suit and put forth a plea that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of deceased Mukundappa. Mukundappa executed a Will on 22.06.1997 bequeathing the suit schedule properties to his grandson Vitthal (defendant No.2) and thus denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court in O.S.No.248/1997:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit B-Schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties of the parties?

2. Whether the plaintiff prove that Mukundappa purchased the suit B-schedule properties out of the funds from the sale of ancestral properties and other savings?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants No.1 and 2 have created bogus will deed in favour of defendant No.2 and it is outcome of fraud and undue influence?

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have got 2/3rd share in the suit B-schedule properties?

5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit B-schedule properties are self-acquired properties of deceased Mukundappa?

6. Whether the defendants prove that Mukundappa executed a valid Will on 22.06.1997 and bequeathed the suit B-schedule properties to defendant No.2?

7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

8. Whether the valuation made and court fee paid is proper?

9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed?

10. What order or decree?”

5. In respect of the very same properties, original Suit No.267/1997 was filed by the aforesaid Sulochana and Mala, namely, the wife and daughter of Hanamant seeking partition and separate possession of their 2/9th share and also for their respective share in the compensation amount. Even in the said suit, the contesting defendants put forth the Will said to have been executed by late Mukundappa and denied the claim of the plaintiffs therein for partition and separate possession. Based on these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court in O.S.No.267/1997:

“1. Whether the plaintiff prove that the schedule-B properties are the joint family ancestral properties of the parties?

2. Whether the plaintiff No.1 prove that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2 is their daughter?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the will dated 22.06.1997 by Mukundappa is obtained by Isarabai by practsing fraud and undue influence?

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for 2/9th share in the suit properties?

5. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 prove that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of deceased Mukundappa?

6. Whether the suit is barred by time?

7. Whether the valuation made for the purpose of jurisdiction is not correct?

8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed?

9. What order or decree?”

6. Both the suits were clubbed and common evidence was adduced. After considering the evidence, the leaned C