JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the appellants counsel and the respondents counsel at the time of admission on these two appeals.

2. The respondent No.1 in this appeal instituted a suit for partition in respect of eight items of the property described in plaint schedule property. The relationship between the parties is as such that plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 7 are her sisters. All the plaint schedule properties belong to joint family. Her father died intestate. She claims 1/8th share in the plaint schedule property. Defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit. Defendant Nos.2, 8 and 9 filed separate written statement and defendant No.4 filed a memo adopting the same written statement. Defendant Nos.3, 5 and 7 did not file written statement. Defendant No.2 denies the right of plaintiff to claim partition and contends that their mother Smt.Thimmamma i.e., the defendant No.1 was working as maid servant and from her own income, she purchased item No.1 of the plaint schedule property on 18.01.1975. It was a open site and thereafter, she constructed a house in one portion of item No.1 of plaint schedule property. Defendant No.2 contends that since item No.1 was the self acquisition of defendant No.1, she on 30.12.1991, executed a will in her favour bequeathing southern portion of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and therefore, after the death of the defendant No.1, she became the absolute owner of the property bequeathed to her. She also contends that about ten years back defendant No.1 sold the North- Eastern portion of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e., to an extent of 27 feet on North-South and 15 feet on East-West in favour of one Smt.Parvathamma i.e., defendant No.8 and therefore, she contends that plaintiff was not entitled to claim share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. Defendant No. 9 also contends that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was self acquisition of first defendant and that a portion of item No.1 was sold to defendant No.8. She pleaded further that defendant No.8 thereafter sold the property that she had purchased in her (defendant No.9) favour. Her another specific contention is that they perfected their title over northern portion of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property by adverse possession.

3. The trial Court framed 5 issues and 7 additional issues. The plaintiff examined herself as PW- 1 and got marked 20 documents as per Exs.P1 to P20. Thereafter the defendants examined 3 witnesses as DW.1 to DW.3 and produced 35 documents.

4. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion to partly decree the suit and held that plaintiff was entitled to 1/7th share in all the plaint schedule property except the northern portion of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to the extent of 15ft X 30ft which was sold to defendant No.8. Aggrieved by this judgment, defendant No.4 has preferred this appeal.

5. I have heard the arguments of the appellants counsel and the respondents counsel.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a legatee under the Will executed by defendant No.1. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. It has erred in allotting share to the plaintiff in respect of the property which has been bequeathed to the appellant by her mother i.e., the defendant No.1. He also submits that the appellant has filed an application under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC for production of Will dated 14.07.1997. The will was not produced in the trial Court. This is a very vital document which needs to be taken on record as it substantiates the contention of the appellant that her mother bequeathed the property to her on 14.07.1997.

7. The respondents counsel submits that defendant Nos.2 and 4 only pleaded about the Will dated 30.12.1991 said to have been executed by defendant No.1. Nothing has been pleaded about the Will dated 14.07.1997 in favour of the appellant. These defen