SHAIK MOHD ALI ANSARI Vs. SHAIK ABDUL SAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 10.12.2001 in A.S.No.23 of 1985, whereby a learned Judge of this Court reversed the Judgment and Decree dated 16.10.1978 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, dismissing O.S.No.41 of 1975. The learned Judge passed a preliminary decree to partition the suit schedule property into three equal shares and to allot two such shares to the plaintiffs. Enquiry into past and future mesne profits was directed to be conducted on a separate application to be filed by the plaintiffs in the trial Court.

(2.) Aggrieved, respondent Nos.2 and 8 in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (defendant No.2 and the widow of deceased defendant No.5 in the suit, who was brought on record as one of his legal representatives in A.S.No.23 of 1985) are in appeal. The appellants in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (plaintiffs in the suit) are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this appeal. Upon the death of respondent No.1 herein, his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.11 to 16 in this appeal. Respondent No.5 herein is respondent No.1 in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (defendant No.1 in the suit). Respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 in this appeal are respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the suit). Defendant No.5 died during the pendency of A.S.No.23 of 1985 and his female legal representatives were brought on record therein as respondent Nos.8 and 9. As stated supra, his widow, respondent No.8 in A.S.No.23 of 1985, is appellant No.2 in this LPA. His other legal representative, respondent No.9 in A.S.No.23 of 1985, is shown as respondent No.10 in this appeal. Respondent No.7 in A.S.No.23 of 1985 (defendant No.7 in the suit), a tenant in the suit schedule property, is shown as respondent No.9 in this appeal. Respondent Nos.5 to 10 in this appeal are however shown as not necessary parties.

(3.) The LPA was admitted on 25.09.2002 and status quo was directed to be maintained. Final decree proceedings were permitted to continue but the trial Court was restrained from passing the final decree.