COMMON JUDGMENT:

Parties to S.A.No.433 of 2018 and S.A.No.472 of 2018 are same. The dispute that arises between them in both the second appeals are same. Therefore, both the appeals are to be considered together and they are to be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. O.S.No.9 of 2002 was a suit filed before learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and O.S.No.63 of 2002 also was a suit before the same Court. Plaintiffs in the second suit are defendants in the first suit. Both the suits were tried together and common evidence was recorded for both the parties in both the suits and by a common judgment dated 11.10.2011, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet dismissed O.S.No.9 of 2002 and decreed O.S.No.63 of 2002. That led the loosing parties to prefer two appeals. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.9 of 2002 who lost their suit, filed A.S.No.96 of 2011 and the same parties who are defendants in O.S.No.63 of 2002 filed A.S.No.97 of 2011 before the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet. Learned first appellate Court heard both appeals together and by a judgment dated 17.11.2017, he dismissed both the appeals and thereby confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court. That made the loosing parties to come to this Court and they preferred two Second Appeals. S.A.No.433 of 2018 assails the judgment and decree in A.S.No.96 of 2011 which arose out of O.S.No.9 of 2002 and S.A.No.472 of 2018 assails the judgment and decree in A.S.No.97 of 2011 which arose out of O.S.No.63 of 2002.

3. Both the appeals have been filed under Section 100 CPC. Respondents in both the appeals having lodged their caveat, received notices and made their appearance through their learned counsel. These two appeals have come up for hearing before admission. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments. To appreciate what is sought to be agitated by the appellants in both the appeals, there is a need to see what unfurled before the Courts below. There was a woman by name Smt. Pidugu Mahalaxmamma and she married a man but they were not blessed with children throughout their lifetime. She owned and possessed an immovable property in the form of tiled house bearing door No.18-202 at Tatikalavari street, Patimeeda, Chilakaluripet within the limits of Chilakaluripet Municipality of Guntur District and that was the subject matter of O.S.No.63 of 2002 referable to S.A.No.472 of 2018. She also had three money deposits lying with the Post Master, Head Post Office, Chilakaluripet. Those three money deposits were the subject matter of O.S.No.9 of 2002 referable to S.A.No.433 of 2018.

4. The controversy between the parties has the following facts and events.

Smt. Pidugu Mahalaxmamma after the death of her husband adopted her husband’s brother’s son, Omkara Radhakrishna Murthy. This adoption was subsequently registered. Ex.A1 is the adoption deed dated 07.03.1977. Sometime later, the adopted son Sri Omkara Radhakrishna Murthy died intestate. His wife, son and daughter are claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Sri Omkara Radhakrishna Murthy and filed O.S.No.9 of 2002. Their claims is that Smt. Mahalaxmamma died and on her death, her adopted son was the legal heir. As he predeceased, his wife and children are entitled to claim the properties of late Smt.Mahalaxmamma. In O.S.No.9 of 2002, they did not sue for entire property and they sued only for recovery of the three deposits lying with the Post Office. The need for filing the suit aroses since late Smt.P.Mahalaxmamma kept one Smt. Challa Adi lakshmi as her nominee for those deposits. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.9 of 2002 claim that a nominee is only an agent and the estate of the deceased belonged to the legal successors and therefore they sued the nominee and the Post Master.

5. The above stated nominee by name Smt. Challa Adi lakshmi has got a different version. She claims that while she was at the age of eight years she was fostered by Smt. P.Mahalakshmamma. The dispute a