JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. Since the subject matter involved in both the appeals is one and the same and the parties are also same, both the appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. CCCA No.53 of 2019 is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree, dated 15.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.1156 of 2007 by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”), while CCCA No.110 of 2019 is filed being aggrieved by the final decree dated 12.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.25 of 2010. I.A. No.1 of 2025 in CCCA No.53 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.2 to receive the documents viz., copy of Will (Veelunama) dated 27.07.1996 and copy of Druveekarana Patram dated 14.11.2001. 3. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. 4. The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiffs are the daughters of late Kolluri Rajaiah and defendant No.3- Balrajamma, who died on 12.08.1996 intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs i.e. three daughters and two sons i.e. defendant Nos.1 and 2 and his wife defendant No.3. It is their case that their father was an employee of SBI and was a member of S.B.I. Staff Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., thus he purchased an open plot from State Bank of India, Staff Co-operative Housing Society and was allotted plot bearing No.66, admeasuring 265 Sq.yards at Tallabasti Slum Area, Ward No.1, Block No.3, New Bakaram, Hyderabad. The open plot was allotted in the year 1972 and thereafter, a building was constructed according to the sanction of Municipal Corporation. The constructed area is 598 Sq.feet and that the plaintiffs contributed at the time of remodeling the house. Their case is that defendants and themselves are the members of joint family and heirs of Kolluri Rajaiah and that their father resided in the suit schedule property along with his wife during his life time. The constructed area is 598 Sq.feet and that the plaintiffs contributed at the time of remodeling the house. Their case is that defendants and themselves are the members of joint family and heirs of Kolluri Rajaiah and that their father resided in the suit schedule property along with his wife during his life time. The mother of the plaintiffs i.e. defendant No.3 is maintaining the entire family and looked after the schedule house and after the death of their father, they have contributed amounts for repairs and maintenance of the suit schedule property to their mother defendant No.3, who looked after the house and that they have been frequently visiting the house and staying there as per their convenience and that the defendants also treated them as family members till they made demands for sharing the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs case is that being the members of the joint family, they are in defacto possession of the suit schedule property and they are entitled to 1/6 th share to each of the plaintiffs along with the defendants, but the defendants refused to allot any share to the plaintiff. 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 20.07.2002 they demanded the defendants for partition of the suit schedule property, but the defendants refused to give any share and that they are trying to alienate the property to third parties and they found that they started negotiating with intending purchasers to sell the suit schedule property. Thus, they filed the present suit seeking 1/6 th share in the property. 6. The defendants 1 and 3 have not contested the suit. Defendant No.2 filed written statement admitting the interse relationship between the parties and also that the father of the defendants purchased the suit schedule property through the society and that he died on 12.08.1996. It is contended by defendant No.2 that he contributed more amounts not only for remodeling of the house but also for the performance of marriages of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. He denied that the plaintiffs to be the members of the joint family. He further submitted that defendant No.1 was working in Railways and used to contribute his earnings to his parents and that defendant No.2 who is working in State Bank of India also used to contribute his earnings to his parents and for the maintenance of the family. He denied that the plaintiffs to be the members of the joint family. He further submitted that defendant No.1 was working in Railways and used to contribute his earnings to his parents and that defendant No.2 who is working in State Bank of India also used to contribute his earnings to his parents and for the maintenance of the family. He also denied that the plaintiffs contributed for the maintenance of house and repairs of the house. It is specifically contended by the defendant No.2 that the properties were orally partitioned among the plaintiffs and defendants and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share over the suit schedule property. He further submitted that their father could not perform the marriages of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and that defendant Nos.1 and 2 contributed their earnings for marriages of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and that they also gave dowry and other ornaments from their earnings. He also stated that the dowry of Rs.30,000/- was given to the 1 st plaintiff who was married on 12.05.1968 apart from jewellery from the joint family funds and properties and further in 1985 their father, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have given Rs.10,000/- to plaintiff No.1 to purchase plot No.20, admeasuring 200 Sq.yards at Medchal. He further averred that plaintiff No.1 has again approached their father for financial assistance for construction of ground floor bearing No.3-5-1118/16, Kachiguda, Hyderabad and accordingly, their father has given Rs.30,000/- from the joint family funds. He further submitted that the properties were already partitioned and the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 got their respective shares in the name of dowry, jewellery, cash and lands etc., during the life time of their father from the joint family funds. That the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no other properties except the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs after receiving the said amounts of dowry and cash and also the gold ornaments from the joint family funds, have filed the suit falsely with a malafide intention to create trouble among the family members. He further submitted that the joint family status is not in existence and that the share of plaintiffs was given to them during the life time of their father and thus, the suit schedule property is the exclusive property of the defendants. The allegation of plaintiffs with regard to the alienation is also denied by the defendants. 7. He further submitted that the joint family status is not in existence and that the share of plaintiffs was given to them during the life time of their father and thus, the suit schedule property is the exclusive property of the defendants. The allegation of plaintiffs with regard to the alienation is also denied by the defendants. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the properties were already partitioned and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 received their share in the form of dowry, jewellery, cash and land etc.? 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit property, if so, to what share they are entitled? 3) To what relief? 8. At the time of trial, the plaintiffs got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and no documents were marked. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has passed a preliminary decree vide judgment dated 15.03.2007 holding that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to 1/6 th share each in the suit schedule property bearing No.1-3-183/40/138, New Bakaram, Tallabasti, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad. 9. After the said preliminary decree was passed, defendant No.3- mother of the parties passed away on 08.11.2015 and a memo was filed on 11.04.2017 intimating about the death of their mother, thereafter, the shares were amended to 1/5 th share to each of the parties to the suit. 10. Defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.21 of 2018 seeking to set aside the preliminary decree stating that he has traced out a Telugu Written Veelunaama (Will) and Dhruveekarana Patram while shifting his house following the death of his mother and that according to the Will, he is the sole successor to the suit schedule property, which was dismissed by the trial Court. Against which, CRP No.128 of 2019 was filed and the same was dismissed by the High Court on 04.02.2019. Challenging the preliminary decree, dated 15.03.2007, the defendant No.2 filed CCCA No.53 of 2019. 11. In the meantime, the trial Court proceeded with the final decree petition in I.A.No.25 of 2010 and pronounced orders on 12.02.2019 passing the final decree and allotting 1/5 th share each to the parties and also holding that there is a provision to file an appeal against the preliminary decree. 11. In the meantime, the trial Court proceeded with the final decree petition in I.A.No.25 of 2010 and pronounced orders on 12.02.2019 passing the final decree and allotting 1/5 th share each to the parties and also holding that there is a provision to file an appeal against the preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.02.2019, the defendant No.2 filed CCCA No.110 of 2019. 12. Heard the submissions of Mohd.Azhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.D.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the respondents. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is the sole successor of the suit schedule property owning to the Will executed by his father and also the affirmation (Dhruveekarana Patram) executed by his parents on 27.07.1996 and 14.11.2001 respectively. He further submitted that he could trace out the said documents while shifting his house following the death of their mother and that immediately he took the said fact to the notice of the trial Court, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the same and he has also filed the affidavits of the attestors before the trial Court but the trial Court failed to consider the said documents and has dismissed the application vide I.A.No.21 of 2018. He further argued that in case if the two documents are not considered by this Court by receiving as additional evidence, grave injustice would be caused to him and that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. His case is that he has been sharing the house hold expenses while his father was over burdened with responsibilities during his life time and considering his contribution to the family, out of love and affection their father has executed a Will in his favour and so the suit schedule property entirely belongs to him and that the other parties do not hold any share in the said property. He therefore, prayed to consider his two documents i.e. Veelunaama (Will) and Dhruveekarana Patram and set aside the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court. He further submitted that this appeal is filed prior to passing of final decree and thus, the final decree proceedings do not come in the way of this appeal and that the documents filed by the appellant would strike at the root of the case and therefore, appreciating the said documents is just and necessary in this case. 14. He further submitted that this appeal is filed prior to passing of final decree and thus, the final decree proceedings do not come in the way of this appeal and that the documents filed by the appellant would strike at the root of the case and therefore, appreciating the said documents is just and necessary in this case. 14. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the appellant herein is taking inconsistent stands, before the trial Court, in the first instance he has contended that there was an oral partition long ago and that the plaintiffs are not at all entitled to any share in the suit schedule property and has contested the suit. Their mother died in the year 2015 and he came up with a petition along with these fictitious documents in the year 2017. He argued that the said documents are brought into existence as an afterthought and that they are very much created documents. He further argued that the copy of Will deed filed by the appellant discloses that they bear thumb impressions of their parents while the Druvikarana patram discloses that it bears the signature of their mother. He further argued that the mother of the parties was an illiterate and thus she could not have signed on the said documents relied upon by the appellant. He further contended that if at all their mother was competent enough to affix the signature, she could have affixed her signature in the first instance when the Will was drafted but it is not done. The errors are apparent on the face of documents and further, the mother of the appellant used to stay with him all along the pendency of the suit and if at all they have executed a Will, she must have stated at any point of time to the defendant but surprisingly their mother does not speak about the said Will till her death in 2015 but suddenly, after the death of the mother and after two years the defendant puts forth these documents stating that the Will is executed by their father and subsequently an affirmation was given by their mother. He further argued that the said documents are not believable and are clouded with suspicion and that it is a second round of litigation. He further argued that the said documents are not believable and are clouded with suspicion and that it is a second round of litigation. He has pointed out that earlier the appellant herein has relied upon the said documents and filed an I.A.No.21 of 2018 seeking to set aside the preliminary decree but the trial Court has dismissed the said IA, against which a CRP was filed and the CRP also got dismissed by the High Court. Since the issue pertaining to the documents has been specifically decided by the trial court and High court, now taking the same plea again would amount to res judicata and that this petition is not maintainable under that count also. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the said IA seeking to file additional evidence and further prayed not to consider the same and to dismiss the appeal. He further argued that there are no merits in the appeal as the appeal is based only on these two documents. He further submitted that the matter attained finality as the final decree has already been passed and the Advocate commissioner was appointed and the property was also divided by metes and bounds before the trial Court. Now the appellant herein intends to unsettle the matter, he therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 15. Based on the above contentions, this Court opines that two preliminary issues arise for consideration before getting into the points that arise for consideration in these appeals: 1) Whether the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC vide I.A.No.01 of 2025 is hit by the doctrine of res judicata? 2) Whether the application under Order XLI Rule 27 be decided along with the main appeal? 3) To what relief? 16. ISSUE NO.1: a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the documents filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are crucial as to the entitlement of the appellant over the suit schedule property and that no other persons could get any share in the suit schedule property when these documents are relied upon. b) The contention of the respondents counsel, on the other hand, is that the question fell for consideration in I.A.No.21 of 2018 before the trial Court and that the trial Court has dismissed the said I.A. and therefore, the present application is barred under res judicata. b) The contention of the respondents counsel, on the other hand, is that the question fell for consideration in I.A.No.21 of 2018 before the trial Court and that the trial Court has dismissed the said I.A. and therefore, the present application is barred under res judicata. c) It is pertinent to refer Section 11 of CPC in this regard and the same is extracted hereunder: “ 11 . Res judicata.— No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.…” d) If an issue is specifically framed and considered by a Court and a finding is delivered thereon, then a subsequent proceedings dealing with the same issue would be barred by res judicata. In the present case, I.A.No.25 of 2010 under Section 151 of CPC was filed by the appellant herein seeking to set aside the preliminary decree and the trial Court has dismissed the same holding that the said petition ought to have been filed in a final decree proceedings and that the relief of setting aside the preliminary decree cannot be granted unless it goes in appeal against the preliminary decree. With the said observation, the trial Court has dismissed the application but has not gone into the merits of the documents. The CRP which was filed against the said order was also dismissed by the High court observing that the recourse to the said question would be to file an appeal against the preliminary decree and that the CRP is not maintainable. Therefore, the documents in question which are filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in this suit, the Will Deed dated 27.07.1996 and Druveekaranapatram dated 14.11.2001 were not received and were not examined as to their probative value in the Court of first instance. Therefore, the documents in question which are filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in this suit, the Will Deed dated 27.07.1996 and Druveekaranapatram dated 14.11.2001 were not received and were not examined as to their probative value in the Court of first instance. e) To succeed under a Will it has to be proved under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act and it also has to pass the test of ruling out the suspicious circumstances and the proof by attestors so on and so forth. f) Without examining the strength of the documents, their probative value, the question in this appeal cannot be decided finally. Therefore, it is opined that the issue raised in the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC was not specifically answered earlier by the trial Court. Hence, it is not hit by the doctrine of res judicata. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 17. ISSUE NO.2: Now, it has to be examined whether this Court can receive the said documents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC . 18. It is pertinent to refer Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in this regard and the same is extracted hereunder: “27. Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.” 19. The documents produced herein were produced before the trial court but under an improper application and hence were not received by the trial court. 20. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.” 19. The documents produced herein were produced before the trial court but under an improper application and hence were not received by the trial court. 20. Thus, under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC , this Court can receive the documents only under the conditions which are mentioned as above. In the present case, the defendant No.2 has come up with the documents stating that they were not available with him prior to passing of preliminary decree. His case is that the said documents were discovered by him while shifting his house after the death of his mother. Thus, prima facie the defendant No.2 could make out his case. That inspite of exercising due diligence, the said documents were not within his knowledge and thus could not be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. The said documents were not available with him prior to passing of preliminary decree, hence could not be produced before the trial court, however, it is not out of place to mention that he could discover the said documents prior to passing of the final decree and the recourse was available to him to produce the documents before the trial court as part of the final decree proceedings or he could have filed an appeal with the said documents before the High Court. However, he has not chosen either of the ways, but he has filed the documents along with the petition seeking to set aside the preliminary decree before the trial court and thus, the trial court has dismissed the same holding that the relief of setting aside the preliminary decree cannot be granted unless it is appealed. Then, again he has preferred a CRP against the said order and the High Court has also observed the same and dismissed the CRP. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 has kept silent for a period of 4 years and then has filed the present application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to receive additional evidence in this appeal. In fact, it was field with a condone delay application which was allowed, as a result of which the present application is taken on file. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 has kept silent for a period of 4 years and then has filed the present application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to receive additional evidence in this appeal. In fact, it was field with a condone delay application which was allowed, as a result of which the present application is taken on file. Thus, by examining the conditions laid down under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC , though it is the case of defendant No.2 that he did not have the documents within his possession inspite of his due diligence, even after getting the documents, he has not resorted to a proper proceeding in approaching the court for receiving the said documents. While so, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 is that the appellate court requires these documents to enable it to pronounce the judgment substantially. His contention is that the Will deed and the Dhruveekaranapatram relied upon by him, if taken on file would change the relief that is to be granted in the appeal. His submission is that according to the Will deed, his father has executed the Will in his favour bequeathing the entire property only to him. Thus, the preliminary decree and the final decree would be nullified with the effect of the Will deed. He, therefore, contends that unless the Will deed is received in evidence, the fate of the appeals cannot be decided, which are based on the preliminary decree and the final decree wherein the shares of the parties i.e. himself and his siblings are decided. 21. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that receiving these documents would not be in any way helpful to decide the case because the said documents are not at all reliable as they are struck with errors apparent on the face of the documents. Thus, in order to give finality to the cause in both the appeals and in order to arrive at substantial justice, so that the matter would be disposed of finally on merits, it is opined that the additional evidence be received in this case. 22. Now, the next question would be whether the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC be decided along with the appeal or should it be decided separately. 23. 22. Now, the next question would be whether the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC be decided along with the appeal or should it be decided separately. 23. The Apex Court has reiterated time and again that the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for receiving additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevancy of the documents in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be lead in the trial court and as to whether the applicant has prosecuted his case before the trial court diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case, the court comes to a conclusion that the application filed falls within the four corners of statutory provisions itself, the evidence may be take on record, however, the court must record reasons as on what basis such an application had been allowed. 24. In Sirajuddin v. Zeenath and others , [ 2023 INSC 173 ] , the Apex Court has held that whenever the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is allowed and the additional evidence is to be received, the application can be disposed of along with the appeal itself. In the said case, the matter was remanded by the High Court for receiving the additional evidence. The said decision was held to be not proper by the Apex Court and it has held that both the appeal and the application can be disposed of simultaneously. Thus, in the light of the said decision and in view of the above held discussion, the application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. is decided and disposed of along with the main appeal itself. 25. I.A. No.1 of 2025 in CCCA No.53 of 2019: The documents that are received under this application are Will deed and Dhruveekarana Patram. The Will deed is dated 27.07.1996 which was executed by the father of defendant No.2 and Druveekarana Patram (affirmation) was executed on 14.11.2001. The recitals of the Will deed show that defendant No.2 is the sole successor to the suit schedule property and the other children are not given any share in the property. The Will deed is dated 27.07.1996 which was executed by the father of defendant No.2 and Druveekarana Patram (affirmation) was executed on 14.11.2001. The recitals of the Will deed show that defendant No.2 is the sole successor to the suit schedule property and the other children are not given any share in the property. The requirements to prove a Will are laid down under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act , which are as follows: “68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested: If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” 26. In addition to the above requisites, a Will need to be proved beyond all suspicious circumstances. The thumb impressions of both the parents are affixed on the Will and it bears the signatures of two attestors. The first suspicion that exists around the Will is that, why were the other children ignored while executing the Will deed by the testator. If at all, the testator has not intended to give any share to the daughters on the pretext of giving jewellery and dowry, then why not any share is given to the other son, remains as an unanswered question. It is mentioned in the Will that just because during their last days, defendant No.2 has given them support, including medical assistance and further that he has helped them in attending to repairs of the house and thus they wanted to give away the property that is H.No.1-3-183/40/138, extending 265 sq. yds., to his second son i.e. defendant No.2 herein. It is pertinent to mention in this regard, that the suit is contested only by defendant No.2. yds., to his second son i.e. defendant No.2 herein. It is pertinent to mention in this regard, that the suit is contested only by defendant No.2. All through his written statement, the defendant No.2 has stated that the female children i.e. his sisters were given jewellery and dowry at the time of marriage and that they were given certain amounts whenever they were in need and necessity, and therefore they cannot claim any share in the suit scheduled property. 27. He further stated that his elder brother and himself used to share the household expenses and also the repairs undertaken by the parents, in which case a share must have been given to the defendant No.1 also, but it is not done. Even if this Will is assumed to be true, there is another document produced by the defendant No.2, which is Dhruveekarana Patram, alleged to have been executed by his mother. The said document is dated 14.11.2001 and it is executed by his mother. It is pertinent to take note of the fact here that the suit was filed in the year 2002 while the Dhruveekarana Patram is executed in 2001 i.e. much prior to filing of the suit. The thumb impressions of both the parents figured in the Will deed. However, the Dhruveekarana Patram is signed by his mother only. If she had taken a different view from that Will, then she could have executed another Will, but it is not the case here. She has affirmed the view that was taken in the Will. Hence, there was no necessity for her to execute another document. The recitals of Dhruveekarana Patram are a replica of recitals of the Will stating that no other children i.e. their elder son or the daughters did not have any share in the suit schedule property, but for their younger son. It was signed by K. Balarajamma i.e., the mother of the parties herein. Another striking feature of this document is that it bears the signature of K. Balarajamma while the earlier document i.e., Will deed bears the thumb impression of K. Balarajamma. Assuming that both the documents are executed, then another suspicion is that when the Will bears the thumb impressions of both the parents, the Dhruveekarana Patram bears the signature of the mother. Assuming that both the documents are executed, then another suspicion is that when the Will bears the thumb impressions of both the parents, the Dhruveekarana Patram bears the signature of the mother. If she had the ability to sign, why she has not signed in the Will deed is another question. Further, it is to be observed that she was staying with the appellant i.e. defendant No.2, all through the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court. 28. It is not the case of the defendant No.2 that she has disclosed about the said Will at any point of time. The suit pertains to the year 2002, his mother was arrayed as defendant No.3, but she has not contested the suit. If at all the Will was in existence, she could have resisted the suit. She has not even whispered anything to the defendant No.2 with whom she was staying, about the Will deed or about the Dhruveekarana Patram. Therefore, all these circumstances create great amount of suspicion, and thus both the documents are surmounted with suspicion which render the Will deed and the Dhruveekarana Patram to be invalid. 29. Hence, in view of the above held discussion and on a bare perusal of both the documents, it is held that the said documents that are received in additional evidence cannot be considered to be genuine and valid. Thus, keeping aside the said documents, now this court would look into the points that arise for consideration in this appeal. 30. Since the preliminary issues are answered as above, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties? 2. Whether there was any prior partition of joint family properties? 3. Weather the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition if so, to what share? 4. Whether the preliminary decree passed by the trial court is sustainable in law and under the facts? 5. To what relief 31. POINT Nos.1 to 3 Admittedly, the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Though the defendant No.2 has alleged that there was a prior partition of properties, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 have received their shares in the form of dowry, jewellery, cash and land, he has not placed any evidence in this regard. The plaintiffs have denied the above said claim of the defendant No.2. Though the defendant No.2 has alleged that there was a prior partition of properties, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 have received their shares in the form of dowry, jewellery, cash and land, he has not placed any evidence in this regard. The plaintiffs have denied the above said claim of the defendant No.2. It is the plea taken by the defendant No.2 and hence, the burden lies on him to prove the prior partition. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 i.e. elder brother and the mother of the parties remained ex parte. It is only the defendant No.2, who contested the suit and got examined as DW.1. The plaintiffs got examined PWs 1 to 3 and they denied the suggestion that there was an oral partition and that dowry was given to their husbands and in laws at the time of their marriages. Though DW.1 has merely stated that there was an oral partition, he didn’t give any details of such partition. DW.1 has stated that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was given as dowry at the time of the marriage of PW.1, but no evidence was put forth in this regard. The marriage of PW.1 is stated to have taken place in 1968. Further, the marriages of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were performed in the year 1987. PWs.2 and 3 have also denied that the dowry was given to their in-laws. Apart from the said suggestion given in the cross examination of PWs.1 to 3, there is no other evidence to prove the dowry being given at the time of marriage. There is no other evidence from DW.1 to prove about the prior partition. Thus, giving some jewellery or articles at the time of marriage cannot be held to be prior partition as averred by the defendant No.2. Hence, the said contention taken by the defendant No.2 is not proved. 32. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Kolluri Rajaiah, father of the parties herein. It is culled out from the evidence of parties that their father was an employee of SBI and was a member of the Staff Cooperative Housing Society and that he was allotted Plot No.66. The said Society constructed the suit schedule building and handed over the same to the father of the parties and he died intestate on 12.08.1996. It is culled out from the evidence of parties that their father was an employee of SBI and was a member of the Staff Cooperative Housing Society and that he was allotted Plot No.66. The said Society constructed the suit schedule building and handed over the same to the father of the parties and he died intestate on 12.08.1996. Since the suit scheduled property is the self acquired property and he died intestate, the plaintiffs and defendants being the Class-1 legal heirs would be entitled to equal share in the suit schedule property. Now, it is the settled position that the female heirs also have equal share in their father’s property. A female heir has a right to claim partition of dwelling house. Thus, the plaintiffs and the defendants are equally entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to mention in this regard that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, prior to passing the preliminary decree, the mother of the parties i.e. defendant No.3 was also alive. Therefore, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 i.e. all the six members were held to be entitled to equal shares in the property. However, subsequent to passing of the preliminary decree, the defendant No.3 has passed away. The trial court, while passing the preliminary decree on 15.03.2007, has held that each of the parties are entitled to 1/6 th share. But taking note of the subsequent event i.e. the death of different No.3, the extent of share was modified. 33. As far as the additional documents i.e. Will deed and Dhruveekaranpatram are concerned, it is held supra, that they do not withstand the legal scrutiny and hence, are not considered. Therefore, the share of the parties would be to 1/5 th each in the suit schedule property. Thus, point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly. 34. POINT No.4 In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 to 3, it is held that the preliminary decree passed by the trial court needs to be modified only to the extent of shares i.e. taking note of the subsequent event, it is held that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled 1/5 th share each in the suit schedule property. 35. 35. POINT No.5: In the result, CCCA No.53 of 2019 is dismissed confirming the preliminary decree passed vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.1156 of 2007 by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 36. CCCA No.110 of 2019: CCCA No. 110 of 2019 is filed by the defendant No.2 seeking to set aside the final degree dated12.02.2019. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether the final decree is in confirmation with the preliminary decree while allotting the shares in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds? 2. Whether the final decree is sustainable in law and facts? 3. To what relief 37. The application for final decree was filed pursuant to passing of the preliminary decree. Prior to passing of the final decree, on a memo filed by the parties intimating about the death of defendant No.3-mother of the parties, the shares were amended and were changed to 1/5 th each and thereafter, I.A. No.25 of 2010 was filed for passing of final decree by the plaintiffs. During the dependency of the final decree proceedings, the plaintiff No.1 also died and petitioner Nos. 4 to 7 were brought on record as Legal Heirs of deceased plaintiff No.1. It is only the defendant No.2 in the suit, who contested the final decree petition, stating that he is not aware of passing of preliminary decree as his counsel failed to inform him. But, it is not out of place to mention here that he has already filed an application seeking to set aside the preliminary decree by relying on a Will deed and the said I.A. was dismissed by the trial court, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. It is also to be noted that he has filed written statement and has adduced evidence in the suit. Hence, he was well aware of the proceedings and filed an I.A. to set aside the preliminary decree and the same was dismissed, aggrieved by the said orders, again he approached the High Court by filing a CRP. Further, he has also preferred appeals against both the decrees now. 38. While admitting the appeal against the final decree, no stay was granted and so the Advocate Commissioner was appointed for division of the properties in accordance with the preliminary decree and for allotment. Further, he has also preferred appeals against both the decrees now. 38. While admitting the appeal against the final decree, no stay was granted and so the Advocate Commissioner was appointed for division of the properties in accordance with the preliminary decree and for allotment. Thus, the Commissioner has executed the warrant and filed the report along with the plan, wherein it is categorically shown about the division of properties by metes and bounds as per the preliminary decree. No objection has been raised by the defendant No.2 to the said division and allotment. However, the petitioners were willing to the said partition and hence, they did not express any objection. Thus, the said division of property by metes and bounds and the allotment was considered by the trial court and a final decree has been passed allotting the property into five shares i.e. A to E and each of the parties were allotted a specific share of 53 sq. yds., and the plan is also annexed to the Advocate Commissioner’s report. A perusal of the Advocate Commissioner’s report reveals the said fact. Thus, ‘A’ portion was given to defendant No.1; ‘B’ portion was given to defendant No.2; ‘C’ portion was given to plaintiff No.1; ‘D’ portion was given to plaintiff No.2; ‘E’ portion was given to plaintiff No.3. 39. Hence, the final decree passed on 1212.02.2019 is in conformity with the preliminary decree and the same is sustained. Point Nos.1 and 2 answered accordingly. 40. POINT No.3: CCCA No.110 of 2019 is dismissed confirming the final decree passed on 12.02.2019 in I.A. No.25 of 2019 in O.S .No.1156 of 2002 by the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 41. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that during the pendency of the final decree proceedings, plaintiff No.1-respondent No.1 died and respondent Nos.4 to 7 were brought on record as her Legal heirs and during the pendency of the appeals, respondent No.4 also died and respondent Nos.14 to 16 were brought on record as his legal heirs; plaintiff No.3 died and respondent Nos.17 and 18 were brought on record as her legal heirs, and defendant No.1-respondent No.8 also died and respondent No.10 to 13 were brought on record as his legal heirs. 42. In the result, I.A. No.1 of 2025 in C.C.C.A. No.53 of 2019 is allowed. 42. In the result, I.A. No.1 of 2025 in C.C.C.A. No.53 of 2019 is allowed. Both the appeals i.e. CCCA No.53 of 2019 and CCCA No.119 of 2019 are dismissed upholding the final decree passed by the trial court. However, the shares allotted by the trial court in the final decree vide order dated 12.02.2019 in I.A. No.25 of 2010 in O.S. No.1156 of 2002 are confirmed, and the shares falling to the deceased parties would be held by the legal heirs of the respective parties. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.