1. These two appeals are between the same parties. Substantial questions of law raised in the appeals are also same. Issues raised before the Courts below were also the same.

2. These appeals are filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the original plaintiff.

3. In Civil Suit No.1 of 1990, it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property bearing Survey No.60 Hissa No.5, known as Semadiyu situated in village Garodia, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad, admeasuring 39 gunthas is of the ownership of the plaintiff. The suit property was given by the father of the plaintiff by oral mortgage to the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 7 for an amount of Rs.350/-. Entry No.102/198 for such oral mortgage was recorded in the Government record and as per the terms of oral mortgage, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 7 was to re-transfer the suit property on father of the plaintiff paying Rs.350/- to the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 7. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had shown his readiness and willingness to repay the said amount to the defendants but the defendants refused to re-transfer the suit property and therefore, a registered notice dated 19.12.1989 was issued to the defendants. Then also, since the defendants did not release the suit property from the mortgage, the suit is filed for redemption of the mortgaged property.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants denying mortgage of the suit property by the father of the plaintiff to the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 7. The defendants have come out with a case that the suit property was of their ownership as the suit property is ancestral property. It is further stated by the defendants that the suit property has been in possession of the defendants as owner of the property and there is no question of re-transfer of the property to the plaintiff. It is specifically stated in the written statement that there was no transaction of mortgage ever entered into between the father of the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 7. The defendants have also taken alternative plea of adverse possession on the ground that the defendants have been in possession of the suit property without any obstruction or interference from the plaintiff for last more than 12 years.

5. Such is the case of the plaintiff in another suit, being Regular Civil Suit No2 of 1990, except difference in description of the property and in the mortgage amount. In this suit, the suit property is bearing Survey No.23, admeasuring 2 acres known as Ghumavadu , situated in village Garodia, Taluka Sanand District Ahmedabad and the suit property is alleged to have been given by oral mortgage for Rs.1800/- to the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 7. The defendants also resisted this suit on the similar grounds raised by them in the written statement in the above Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 1990.

6. Learned Trial Judge in both the suits framed identical issues at Exh.17 and main five issues are as under:-

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is of the ownership of the plaintiff ?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property was given by the father of the plaintiff to the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 7 by oral mortgage ?

(3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is time barred ?

(4) Whether the defendants prove that the suit property is ancestral property and of their ownership ?

(5) Whether the defendants prove that they have become owners by adverse possession ?

Both the suits were though decided on the same day, but by different judgment and decree.

7. Learned Trial Judge in both the suits came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that the suit is of the ownership of the plaintiff and that it was given to the husband of defendant No.1 and fa