C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—The subject matter and the parties to both these appeals are common. Hence, they are heard and are disposed of together.

2. A.S.No.162 of 1997 is filed by defendant Nos.8 and 9 in O.S.No.35 of 1992 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram. A.S.No.1040 of 2000 is filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the said suit. Though A.S.No.1040 of 2000 was filed in the year 1996, the same was numbered in the year 2000 after A.S.No.162 of 1997 was numbered. A.S.No.1040 of 2000 is substantive as it was filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4, who claimed to have succeeded to the testamentary succession through Smt.K.Vasantha Devi. As the appellants in A.S.No.162 of 1997 are the purchasers from the appellants in A.S.No.1040 of 2000, it is appropriate to treat A.S.No.1040 of 2000 as the lead case.

3. Respondent No.1 is the mother of respondent No.2. Both of them filed O.S.No.222 of 1987 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, which was later re-numbered as O.S.No.35 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram, for possession of plaint A schedule properties to respondent No.1, after dividing and allotting their shares in items 1,