MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. - (1.) These appeals are directed against the common judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 323 of 1992 and Appeal Nos. 2959 and 2960 of 2001 dated 11 September, 2003 passed by the High Court   of   Judicature   of   Andhra   Pradesh   at   Hyderabad.     The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 98 of 1984 on the file   of   the   Subordinate   Judge,   Bhimavaram   (formerly   O.P. No.124/1980),   and   O.S.   No.   97   of   1984   on   the   file   of   the Subordinate   Judge,   Bhimavaram   (formerly   O.P.   No.10/1982). They were the defendants in O.S. No. 72 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate  Judge,  Bhimavaram (formerly O.P. No.32/1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur).
(2.) O.S. No. 98 of 1984 was filed for partition of Schedule A property against Defendant Nos. 5 to 25. In this suit, only one alienation   made   by   Veeraswamy   (the   plaintiff Lakshminarasamma's   son)   was   assailed,   though   Veeraswamy had   alienated   various   other   properties   through   different   sale deeds falling under Schedule A.  O.S. No. 97 of 1984 was filed for partition of Schedule A and B properties as well as for eviction of Defendant Nos. 26 to 125 and 127 from the said properties.  O.S. No.   72   of   1983   was   filed   by   one   Sagi   Subba   Raju   (one   of   the respondents   in   these   appeals)   for   specific   performance   of   an agreement   of   sale   dated   19.09.1974   executed   by   the   late Veeraswamy covering an extent of 3 acres 56 cents in Revenue Survey Nos. 347 and 347/3 of Bhimavaram village. O.S.   Nos.   97   of   1984   and   98   of   1984   (for   partition   of Schedule A and B properties) were dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court. O.S. No. 72 of 1983 (suit for specific performance) was decreed partly, directing sale of 1/3rd of the property in favour of the plaintiff Sagi Subba Raju, and   such   decree   was   confirmed   by   the   first   appellate   Court. Feeling   aggrieved   by   these   judgments   and   decrees,   the unsuccessful appellants filed appeals before the High Court.  So also, Sagi   Subba Raju, who was to get 1/3rd  of the property in the   suit   for   specific   performance   filed   L.P.A.   No.   323   of   1992 before the High Court.  All these appeals were heard together by the High Court and decided against the appellants herein, which means   that   the   judgments   and   decrees   of   dismissal   passed   in O.S. Nos. 97 & 98 of 1984 were confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court also.   Thus, there are concurrent findings of three Courts in respect of those two suits filed by appellants for partition against the appellants herein.  In respect of O.S. No. 72 of 1983 also, the Division Bench proceeded to grant a decree, as prayed   for,   in   favour   of   Sagi   Subba   Raju   and   against   the appellants   herein.     In   other   words,   the   suit   for   specific performance also was decreed fully against the appellants herein. Hence, the appellants are before this Court.
(3.) Shri A. Subba Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the   appellants,   taking   us   through   the   material   on   record, submits that the Courts below were not justified in concluding that the bequests (Wills) relied upon by the defendants, i.e. Will dated   14.08.1932   (Exhibit   B4/Ex.P1)   in   respect   of   Schedule   A property and the Will dated 05.10.1968 (Exhibit B106/Ex. P2) in respect   of   Schedule   B   property   executed   for   the   benefit   of Veeraswamy, were proved; that the plaintiffs have got 2/3 rd share in the suit properties and therefore the bequests (Exhibits B4 and B106)   will   not   confer   any   right   to   the   beneficiary   in   excess   of remaining 1/3rd  of the properties. Lastly, he submitted that the Defendant   Nos.   5   to   125   &   127,   being   the   purchasers   of   the properties   from   Veeraswamy   (in   whose   favour   the   Wills   were executed), are liable to be evicted inasmuch as Veeraswamy did not have any right, title or interest over the suit properties to the full extent, on the other hand, Veeraswamy had only 1/3 rd share in the suit properties.;