LAWS(SC)-2008-2-128

N SRIHARI Vs. N PRAKASH

Decided On February 19, 2008
N.SRIHARI Appellant
V/S
N.PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THE appellants herein are the unsuccessful defendants in o. S. No. 9 of 1993 on the file of the trial Court as well as the High Court. The LRs of the deceased parties as well as the purchasers and third parties who were not parties before the trial court and the High Court also filed appeals. The respective claim/stand of the parties is being explained hereunder. In order to understand their claim, entitlement etc. , let us refer to the geneology table of the family of N. Saya Goud.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment in A. S. No. 78 of 1994, N. Srihari (since deceased), N. Laxminarayana and N. Dayanand (defendant nos. 2, 5 and 6) filed SLP (C) No. 17808 of 2005. The very same parties aggrieved by the decision in CMP No. 17581 of 2001 preferred slp (C) No. 17809 of 2005. While ordering notice in the above SLPs, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that "final decree proceedings may go on, but the final decree as such shall not be signed unless permitted by this Court". Based on the said interim order, when the final decree proceedings were in progress Ms. N. Anuradha, N. Saivenkataramana and B. Sai Nagraj, defendant Nos. 18-20 filed I. A. No. 2017 of 2006 under Section 151 CPC and requested the trial Court Hot to proceed with the enquiry in relation to the suit schedule property on the ground that the "occupancy Rights certificate" was issued in favour of the first defendant in respect of the entire suit schedule property and that the land covered by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana) Area Abolition of Enams Act, 1955 cannot constitute the subject-matter of a partition suit. The trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 13. 07. 2006. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed crp No. 3726 of 2006 before the High Court. By order dated 30. 08. 2006, [earned Single judge of the High Court confirming the order of the trial Court dismissed the revision. Against that order of the High Court, the petitioners therein (defendant Nos. 18-20)filed SLP (C) No. 18481 of 2007.