M PADMA Vs. M SESHAGIRI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the revision petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) C.R.P.No. 4539 of 1998 arises out of the order dt.21.4.1993 in E.A.No.27 of 1990 in E.P.No 35 of 1989 in O.S.No.51 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Mahabubabad allowing the E.A.No.27 of 1990 and consequently dismissing E.P.No.35 of 1989. C.R.P.No.279 of 1994 arises out of the order dismissing E.P.No.35 of 1989.

(3.) Revision petitioners filed O.S.No.51 of 1964 seeking partition of the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint. After preliminary decree was passed, they filed I.A.No.22 of 1969 for passing a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree. On 31.1.1972 a final decree, allotting shares to each of the sharers, was passed. Thereafter the revision petitioners filed E.P.No.35 of 1989 seeking possession of the shares allotted to them under the final decree. In that E.P, first respondent filed E.A.No.27 of 1990 under Order 21 Rule 97 contending that house bearing No.2-5-110 is a part and parcel of the old house bearing No.2-3-88, (which is subject matter of the suit whose decree is sought to be executed) and that he has been in possession of the entire house from over 27 years and has been paying tax to the gram panchayat in his capacity as owner from 1964 onwards till 1978 and came to know, very recently that a final decree was passed in I.A.No.22 of 1969 in O.S.No.51 of 1964, and that that final decree is not in accordance with the preliminary decree; the plan enclosed to the warrant is wrong and does not show the correct location and so he cannot be evicted from the house bearing No.2-5-110.