Shaffique, J.

1. Since common questions arise for consideration in the above Regular First Appeals (RFAs), they are heard and decided together. The judgment in the RFAs has a bearing to the judgment which is impugned in LAA No.48/2012 and hence the said appeal is also heard and decided along with the RFAs.

2. RFA Nos.151/08 and 372/08 have arisen from the common judgment in OS No.209/1996 and RFA No.373/2008 had arisen from the very same common judgment relating to OS No.614/95. LAA No. 48/12 has arisen from the judgment in LAR No.188/1998 which was decided separately.

3. RFA No.372/2008 has been filed by defendants 1 to 4 and 8 in OS No.209/1996 and RFA No.151/2008 has been filed by the defendants 10 and 11 in the same suit. RFA No.373/2008 has been filed by the plaintiff in OS No. 614/1995.

4. The suit, O.S.No.209/1996 was filed by Indira Kumari as plaintiff seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties. It was contended that the plaint schedule properties were obtained by the plaintiff and defendants as per partition deed No.3275 dated 30/6/1958 wherein the property was described as D schedule. Since the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 were minors, the plaint schedule property was taken possession by the first defendant, their mother, on their behalf. According to her, she was in joint possession of the property along with defendants 1 to 6 and therefore she was entitled to 1/7 share in respect of the plaint schedule properties. It is further contended that, plaintiff and her husband were conducting a printing press in a building situated in plaint schedule item No.2 under the name and style Sreelekshmi Colour Printers. It is alleged that first defendant has executed various gift deeds in favour of defendants 3 to 5 and 7 to 11 which are void and cannot affect the rights of the plaintiff in any manner. Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 filed a joint written statement. Separate written statements were filed by defendants 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. They denied the claim of the plaintiff. It is alleged that item Nos. 1 and 3 in the plaint schedule are the properties which were acquired by 1st defendant's father and the said property was allotted to the 1st defendant alone, she being one of the heirs. 1st defendant's children have no right over the said properties. It is further contended that first defendant had every right to deal with the properties as absolute owner. The defendants also denied that the plaintiff was having possession over the properties. It is also contended that 1st defendant had gifted 20 cents from item No.2 to the 3rd defendant in 1967 and the balance property is in the possession of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant had constructed buildings and is residing in one such building. 1st defendant had executed a gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in 1992. The plaintiff having known about the same did not raise any objection. She had taken the building from the 2nd defendant on rent and is in possession as a tenant. Hence, she is estopped from claiming any right over item No.2. Defendants contended that the documents executed by the first defendant in favour of other defendants are valid and there is no cause of action for filing the suit. Portion of the plaint schedule item No.3 was acquired by the Government and possession was taken from defendants 4, 5 and 7. It is also contended that right, if any, of the plaintiff has been lost by open hostile declaration by 1st defendant and her successor in interest. The 5th defendant obtained 27½ cents of land as per a gift deed of the year 1974 and thereafter she claimed absolute possession over the properties. She constructed a building along with her husband and they were residing in the said property for the last 25 years, until it was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The first defendant gifted 3½ cents of property to 7th defendant in the year 1992. 7th defendant is the daughter of the 5th defendant. Defendants