G UMESH Vs. A SEETHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH C.R.P. Nos.3481 and 4636 of 2011 are filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.20 of 2005 aggrieved by the docket order in LA. No.481 of 2011 in I.A. No.30 of 2008 in O.S. No.20 of 2005 dated 11.8.2011, and the subsequent order in I.A. No.30 of 2009 in O.S. No.20 of 2005 dated 12.10.2011, on the file of the I Addl. District Judge, Anantapur.

(2.) O.S. No.20 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner herein seeking partition of the suit schedule properties; for a preliminary decree directing division of the suit schedule properties into three equal shares by metes and bounds; for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff; and to put him in possession thereof. The defendants in the said Suit were the plaintiff's mother and brother. A compromise petition was filed by the plaintiff and the defendants in terms of which the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to enjoy Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property jointly, having equal share i.e., 1/3rd share each; none of them had an individual right to alienate the same; if the parties directed (sic. decided) to sell, both the plaintiff and the defendants had to sell the said property jointly; the plaintiff and the defendants agreed that house tax, water tax and electrical consumption charges would be paid to the concerned departments by persons who resided in item No.1 of the schedule property; the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to sell item No.2 of the schedule property, and to receive the sale proceeds in the agreed shares i.e., 37.5% for the plaintiff; 30% for the 1st defendant and 32.50% to the 2nd defendant. Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was house bearing No.3/384 situated at Court Road, Anantapur and Item No.2 was house bearing No.11/176 situated at Subash Road, Anantapur. A compromise decree was passed, in terms of the compromise petition, in O.S. No.20 of 2005 on 11.11.2005.

(3.) THE Learned District Judge, by proceedings dated 12.10.2011, directed that a final decree be passed; and, for the said purpose, appointed an advocate commissioner to divide item No.1 of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares by measuring the entire property, and preparing a proper plan. THE Advocate commissioner was directed to issue notice to both the parties; fix a date for the commissioner to visit the schedule property on the day fixed; and to measure the property and prepare a plan to divide the property equally between the parties. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.10.2011, C.R.P. No.4636 of 2001 is filed.