MOTAMARRI VENKATA KOTAMMA Vs. NARRA LAKSHMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioners challenge the order of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chirala in E.A. No.160 of 1997 in E.P. No.42 of 1995 in O.S. No.12 of 1942.

(2.) The relevant facts may be briefly stated as under: O.S. No.12 of 1942 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali for partition. In that suit, the ancestor of the petitioners herein by name Motamarri Veeraiah was defendant No.3. During the pendency of the suit, item-12 of the B-schedule was under the possession and management of defendant No.3. He entered into an agreement of sale in favour respondents herein on 16-3-1957. Possession of the said item of property was delivered to the petitioners. Defendant No.3 died somewhere in the year 1960. Thereafter, the petitioners herein who are legal representatives of defendant No.3 executed sale deeds in favour of respondents transferring item No.12 of suit "B" schedule property in the year 1963 under documents marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2. when certain proceedings were taking place in the suit as to entrustment of the properties to the receiver, the respondents got themselves impleaded in the suit as defendants 17 to 22 by filing LA. 671 of 1965, which was ordered on 23-7-1965. Thereafter, a preliminary decree was passed on 22-4-1966. The preliminary decree was challenged in various proceedings and the matter went up to Supreme Court. Ultimately, the final decree came to be passed on 22-12-1975 wherein item 12 of the suit 'B' schedule property was allotted to the petitioners herein. It appears that the final decree proceedings were also challenged in some other proceedings. It was only in the year 1982 that the said final decree proceedings assumed finality.

(3.) The petitioners filed E.P. No.42 of 1995 claiming that under the final decree proceedings item No.12 of suit 'B' schedule was allotted to their share together with the mesne profits accrued thereon and that since the said property is in the possession of the respondents, the petitioners may be put in possession of the said property. In that E.P. the respondents filed E.A. 160 of 1997 under Section 47 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a declaration that the petitioners herein are not entitled to seek execution of the decree against the respondents on the ground that the title as well as the possession of the said property vests in them. The executing Court passed an order dated 28-11-1997 in which it dismissed E.P. 42 of 1995 and allowed E.A. 160 of 1997. Thus arises the revision.