N. Balayogi, J.—Inasmuch as both these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment and decree, and parties being same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment:

F.C.A.No.99 of 2006:

2. The appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2006 passed in O.S.No.52 of 1996 by the learned Judge, Family Court, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad preferred this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 on the grounds that:

(a) the judgment and decree of the Family Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the Family Court erred in partly decreeing the suit O.S.No.52 of 1996 based on Exs.A.5 to A.8 without considering the objections of the appellant with regard to the admissibility and enforceability of the documents as required under Section 49 of the Registration Act and that Exs.A.7 and A.8 are required to be stamped in accordance with the relevant entries in Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act and compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.

(b) The Family Court erred in altering the issue as to whether the Agreements dated 9.7.