M. SUNDAR, J.

1. This litigation commenced two decades and two years ago when one Ponniah chose to file a suit in O.S.No.68 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli. 'Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli', shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

2. In this suit, defendants 2 to 5 are Ponniah's siblings. Defendant No.1 is one Vimala Saroja. Defendants 6, 7 and 8 are three different Banks.

3. Ponniah and Defendants 2 to 5 had a sibling by name Joseph, who died on 16.02.1995. Vimala Saroja, who has been arrayed as Defendant No.1 in this suit, had married Joseph on 10.05.1985. In this suit, it is the case of Ponniah and Defendants 2 to 5 that they are the legal heirs of Joseph and Vimala Saroja's marriage to Joseph on 10.05.1985 is not valid. On this basis, Ponniah and his aforesaid siblings in this suit, sought for a declaration that they are the legal heirs of Late Joseph and also for a declaration of title over certain schedules of properties. Declaration of title over certain properties set out in the schedule to the plaint is predicated on the ground that Ponniah and his aforesaid siblings alone are Joseph's legal heirs, as Vimala Saroja's marriage to Joseph on 10.05.1985 is not valid.

4. When things stood above, Vimala Saroja along with one Anitha Valarmathi, who according to Vimala Saroja is her foster daughter, filed a petition in the trial Court on 19.11.1998. This petition is O.P.No.129 of 1998 and in this petition, the petitioners sought for a probate of a Will dated 14.11.1994 said to have been executed by Late Joseph. In this petition for probate, the aforesaid Ponniah and his siblings were arrayed as defendants 1 to 5 in the probate petition. Respondents 1 to 5 in the probate petition i.e, siblings of Joseph, contested the Will and therefore, the Original Petition was converted into a suit. The suit was assigned the number O.S.No.272 of 2001 on the file of the trial Court.

5. As would be evident from the narrative thus far, the aforesaid two suits have a common factual matrix and prayers sought for therein and possible verdicts are inseparably dovetailed. Therefore, there was joint trial. In the joint trial, Vimala Saroja and her foster daughter were treated as plaintiffs and Ponniah and his siblings were treated as Defendants. After full contest and trial, the trial court passed a common judgment dated 18.03.2003 in both the suits. In and by this common judgment, the trial Court decreed Ponniah's suit O.S.No.68 of 1996 and dismissed Vimala Saroja's suit i.e., O.S.No.272 of 2001.

6. In the joint trial, attestors of the aforesaid testament were examined as PW1 and PW2. Vimala Saroja was examined as PW3 and one P.Subramanian, Advocate in whose Chambers the aforesaid testament/Will is said to have been executed, was examined as PW4. On the side of the defendants, Ponniah's son one Gunapal was examined as the lone witness i.e, DW1. On the side of the plaintiffs, two documents, namely aforesaid testament/Will dated 14.11.1994 and a letter were marked as Exs.A1 and A2. On the side of the defendants, four documents were marked. While Exs.B1 and B2 are a legal notice dated 18.03.1995 sent by Ponniah to Vimala Saroja and acknowledgement for the same, Ex.B3 is an order dated 17.07.1987 made by Madras High Court in M.C.No.14 of 1985. Ex.B4 is a Revenue receipt pertaining to plaint schedule properties.

7. After the aforesaid common judgment and decree dated 18.03.2003 made by the trial Court, Vimala Saroja carried the matter by way of a regular first appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC" for brevity). As the common judgment disposed of two suits, two separate regular first appeals were filed and they are A.S.No.126 of 2003 and A.S.No.127 of 2003. A.S.No.126 of 2003 is one assailing the decree in aforesaid O.S.No.68 of 1996 (Ponniah's suit). A.S.No.127 of 2007 is directed against dism