JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

These two Appeals arise out of the same suit between the same parties, and so they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The appellants in both the Appeals are defendant nos.1 to 3 in Original Suit No.432 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally (for short "the Court below").

3. The said suit had been filed by their three sisters and the son of a deceased sister, viz., Bhagyamma, for partition of Plaint 'A', 'B', & 'C' Schedule properties into seven equal shares, and for allotment of 1/7th share each to plaintiff nos.1 to 4 / respondent nos.2 to 5 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.408 of 2020 / respondent nos.1 to 4 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.440 of 2020 (hereinafter, referred to as 'plaintiffs'); and 1/7th share each to appellants, and 1/7 share to appellants and 1st respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.408 of 2020 / appellants and 5th respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.440 of 2020.

4. The parties will henceforth be referred to as per their array in the suit.

The case of the plaintiffs

5. Plaintiff nos.1 to 3 are the daughters, defendant nos.1 to 3 are the sons and 4th plaintiff is the grandson of Sri Vadla Brahmaiah ( for short 'Brahmiah') and Smt. Kousalya. The 4th plaintiff is the son of Late Bhagyamma and another daughter of Brahmaiah.

6. The plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 3 constitute Hindu Undivided Joint Family; that Brahmaiah had ancestral as well as self-acquired properties and he expired intestate on 22.07.1998; that another sister of plaintiffs by name Pentamma died long back.

7. The plaintiffs alleged that Plaint 'A' to 'C' Schedule properties are the ancestral and self-acquired properties of Brahmaiah; they are not yet partitioned by metes and bounds and were in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 3; after the death of Brahmaiah, his wife Smt. Kousalya requested defendant nos.1 to 3 to divide the suit schedule properties equally among five daughters and three sons, and though defendant nos.1 to 3 agreed to it, they went on dragging the division of properties during her lifetime.

8. They alleged that Smt. Kousalya died on 21.02.2013 leaving plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 3 as her legal heirs, and thereafter, defendant nos.1 to 3 intended to grab the joint family properties knowing well that their mother Smt. Kousalya had a share in her husband's property as Class I heir.

9. They alleged that they requested defendant nos.1 to 3 to divide the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to allot their respective shares; that they along with defendant nos.1 to 3 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'A' to 'C' properties, but defendant nos.1 to 3, in order to deprive plaintiffs of their share made an illegal partition of the properties among themselves and cheated plaintiffs by committing breach of trust.

10. They contended that defendant nos.1 to 3 partitioned 'A' Schedule property through a registered Partition Deed Ex.P.1 dt.18.12.2018 falsely mentioning therein that they alone are the successors and legal heirs of Brahmaiah, and they suppressed the existence of daughters / plaintiffs fraudulently, and got the said Deed registered.

11. They further alleged that taking advantage of Ex.P.1 registered Partition Deed dt.18.12.2018, defendant nos.1 to 3 entered into a registered Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney Ex.P.4 dt.08.04.2019 and Ex.P.5 also dt.08.04.2019; and even in the said Agreement, the defendant nos.1 to 3 suppressed the facts of surviving female legal heirs.

12. They further alleged that 'C' Schedule property was fraudulently partitioned by defendant nos.1 to 3 by mentioning that they alone are the legal heirs / successors of Brahmaiah under Ex.P.2 dt.31.08.2015 and gave the said property for development to 4th defendant under