LAWS(APH)-2011-11-103

NANNURI SATHI REDDY Vs. NANNURI NARSI REDDY

Decided On November 25, 2011
NANNURI SATHI REDDY Appellant
V/S
NANNURI NARSI REDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein filed O.S.No.513 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Ramannapet, for a declaration that he has acquired the rights of ownership, vis--vis the suit schedule property, on the basis of an oral partition in the family. Most of the respondents herein figured as defendants in that suit. An ex parte decree was passed on 13.02.1990. Thereafter, the appellant filed E.P.No.3 of 1991 for execution of the said decree, at that stage. One year thereafter, respondents 1 to 4, 7 and 8 herein filed O.S.No.205 of 1991, against the appellant and respondents 5 and 6, with a prayer to cancel the decree in O.S.No.513 of 1989. It was pleaded that though the summons in that suit were not served in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 C.P.C., the process server endorsed that the summons were served, and taking the same into account, the trial Court set the defendants therein ex parte and passed the ex parte decree. An allegation of fraud on the part of the appellant herein was made. The appellant alone contested O.S.No.205 of 1991. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 08.12.1998.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed A.S.No.11 of 1999 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir. The appeal was allowed through judgment dated 15.07.2003. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Sri K.Narasimhachari, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the very institution of O.S.No.205 of 1991 was opposed to law. He contends that, in case respondents 1 to 4, 7 and 8 were of the view that the summons were not served in accordance with law, they could have filed an application under Rule 13 of Order IX C.P.C. or preferred an appeal. He submits that even on merits, the trial Court recorded a finding to the effect that the summons were properly served. Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of O.S.No.205 of 1991, the 9th respondent herein filed O.S.No.61 of 1998, against the appellant and respondents 1 to 8 and certain others, for partition.