KELLA SANYASAPPALANAIDU Vs. MAHANTI PENTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, the Counsel representing the revision petitioner. None represents the respondents though notices had been served on the respondents.

(2.) On 3-1 -2003, this Court while admitting the Civil Revision Petition initially granted interim stay for a period of four weeks and subsequent thereto on 9-1-2003, interim stay already granted was extended till further orders. The 1st petitioner-1st judgment debtor in E.A.No.539 of 2002 in E.P.No.102 of 2000 in O.S.No.168 of 1983 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram is the present revision petitioner.

(3.) The application in E.A.No.539 of 2002 was moved by the revision petitioner herein and another Thripuragiri Kannayya who is shown as respondent No.3 but specified as not a necessary party in the present Civil Revision Petition. The respondents 1 and 2 herein obtained a decree for declaration and for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.168 of 1983 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, in relation to the plaint schedule property. The judgment debtors as petitioners in E.A.No.539 of 2002 raised objection that there is no neem tree at all in the plaint schedule property. It is also stated that neither the plaint plan nor the plaint schedule discloses the existence of neem tree, which is aged more than 25 years. But, however, the respondents 1 and 2-decree holders-plaintiffs are taking a stand that there is a neem tree falling within the plaint schedule property and hence, the decree can be executed. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram by order dated 1-10-2002 dismissed the said application with costs and aggrieved by the same, the 1st petitioner-1st judgment debtor alone had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.