M KRISHNA RAO Vs. M L NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the appeals are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) L.P.A.No. 11 of 1998 arises out of C.C.C.A.NO. 131 of 1994, which arose out of O.S.NO. 641 of 1988 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. L.P.A.No. 65 of 1998 arises out of Tr.C.C.C.A.No. 26 of 1995, which arose out of O.S.No. 1369 of 1989 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was originally instituted as O.S.No. 4528 of 1987 on the file of the Court of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.NO. 641 of 1988 are the appellants and both the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No. 641 of 1988 are respondents 1 to 4 respectively in L.P.A.No. 11 of 1998. Second appellant and respondents 1 and 2 in L.P.A.No. 11 of 1988 are the plaintiffs and defendants respectively in O.S.No. 1369 of 1989. Both the suits, O.S.Nos. 641 of 1988 and 1369 of 1989, were tried and disposed of together by a common judgment by the trial Court and similarly C.C.C.A.No. 131 of 1994 and Tr.C.C.C.A.No. 26 of 1995 were also disposed of by a common judgment by a learned Single Judge of this Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No. 341 of 1988.

(3.) Plaintiffs filed O.S.No. 641 of 1988 for partition of the house property situated within the boundaries described in the schedule appended to the plaint, alleging that they and defendants are brothers and are the sons of M.V. Chalapathi Rao, a native of Kothareddipalem, Tenali Taluk, Guntur District, who was a village Karnam and also a document writer. Chalapathi Rao, after selling away the ancestral houses at Kothareddipalem and Chebrolu, migrated to Hyderabad and purchased Plot Nos. 84 and 85 at Old Malakpet in the name of the first defendant, benami for the benefit of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons, and constructed a house therein with the sale proceeds of the ancestral houses and the contributions made by the defendants. Even during the lifetime of the parents of the parties, the first defendant relinquished his share in the plaint schedule property in favour of first plaintiff and fourth defendant under a registered release deed dated 30-08-1966. But second defendant is giving out that he obtained a decree in O.S.No. 4144 of 1986 against the first defendant for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property. Since none of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 are parties to the said suit, the decree in O.S.No. 4144 of 1988 is not binding on them.