PALLAMKURTHI CHINA APPANNA Vs. YENUMULA VEERAYYA DORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No. 101 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Prathipadu, is the appellant herein. The suit was one filed for partition of the schedule property into four shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and also for profits.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant borrowed some money from him and as the 1st defendant failed to discharge the said loan, he filed S.C.No. 237 of 1968 and obtained a decree and in execution of the decree, he purchased the property and obtained a symbolic delivery of the property in E.A.No. 983 of 1973 on 24.12.1973. After the said sale, the second defendant came into possession of the property and hence the suit.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement disputing the validity of the Court sale and the decree. The suit as framed is not maintainable and all the family members of the 1st defendant were not added as parties to the proceedings and the suit for partial partition is also not maintainable. The 1st defendant sold his share in 1967 under possessory agreement to one K. Veera Raju of Peddapuram and the 1st defendant cannot have any other property in the family. There is collusion between the 1st defendant and plaintiff. The 2nd defendant claimed to have purchased the land from all the sharers of the 1st defendant's family, who are the original owners, for discharge of their prior mortgage debt. The 3rd defendant was subsequently added as a party disputing the Court auction and contending that she also purchased part of the property.