DEVINENI MALLIKARJUNA RAO Vs. SURAPANENI SURAMMA DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the defendants 16 and 17 aggrieved by the compromise decree that was passed in OS No. 135 of 1981 dated 13-6-1993,

(2.) The 1st respondent herein, who is the widow of late Janardhanam, filed OS No.135 of 1981 against her mother-in-law Surapaneni Veeramma, for partition of the suit schedule properties in two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to her. Pending the said partition suit, the defendants 2 to 6 came on record, as per the orders in IA No.353 of 1982 dated 20th July, 1982; 7th Defendant also came on record as per the orders in IA No.749 of 1981, dated 20-7-1982; 8th defendant, which is a trust came on record, as per the orders in IANo.892 of 1982, dated 20th July, 1982. Defendants 9 to 12 are added as legal representatives of the deceased 5th defendant as per the orders dated 11.7.1984; 13th defendant came on record, as legal representative of the 1st defendant as per the orders in IA No.569 1983, dated 25-2-1985; defendants 14 to 17 were impleaded as legal representatives of the 3rd defendant by order dated 27-12-1991. In the suit defendants 1, 3, and 5 died pendente lite and the defendants 8 to 12 and 14 to 17 remained ex parte.

(3.) A compromise memo was filed by the plaintiff and defendants 2, 6, 7 and 13. Further as per the said compromise memo, defendants 1, 8 to 12, 14 to 17 are given up. Consequently, a decree was passed in terms of the compromise memo, dividing the suit schedule properties between the plaintiff and the 13th defendant, who was the legal representative of the 1st defendant into two equal shares and allotting one share each to each of them. Items 28 to 38 and 40, which are covered by gift deeds in favour of the defendants 6 and 7 are excluded and the gifts in their favour were accepted. Though the 2nd defendant claimed the suit schedule property based on a Will and codicil dated 31-5-1981 alleged to have been executed by late Janardhanam, he admitted the same as not true and valid and do not confer any rights on the 2nd defendant. Items 1 and 12 of the B Schedule, movable properties were also ordered to be shared equally between the plaintiff and the 13th defendant. Further certain other movables were also ordered to be divided between the plaintiff and 13th defendant; 6th defendant and 7th defendant together 1/3rd share each. When the said compromise decree was passed by the Court below, the 16th and 17th defendants, who remained ex parte in the suit and who were also given up at the time of passing of the compromise decree, have come up with the present appeal.