PULLAREDDIGARI VENKATASUBBA REDDI Vs. PULLAREDDIGARI PEDDASUBBAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of Justice Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, reversing that of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly narrated.

(2.) The respondents laid an action (O. S. No. 37/1946) for partition and separate possession of their shares in the joint family properties. On 21-8 1948 there was a preliminary decree passed by consent. In pursuance thereof, a Commissioner was appointed and further steps were taken, ultimately there was a compromise on 15-12-51 which formed the basis of the final decree, by and under which the properties set out in schedules A and A-1 were allotted to the plaintiffs-respondents and those comprised in B and B-1 schedules were allotted to the defendants. The decree provided for taking out execution and obtaining possession through Court. Subsequently, the respondents applied for delivery of possession of item (i) of A-1 schedule, as well as other properties forming part of A and A-1 schedule, in E. P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1954. On E. P. No. 1/1954 the Court made an order directing delivery of the properties and in fact some of the properties were delivered, but not item (1) of A-1 schedule. Shortly, thereafter, the judgment-debtors appeared in Court and complained that delivery was ordered without notice to them. Thereupon, the executing Court vacated the previous order and after hearing the objections of the judgment-debtors-appellants, delivery of all items except item (1) of A-1 schedule was again ordered. As there were variations in the descriptions of the properties, time was taken by both the parties for giving correct descriptions and this matter was adjourned from time to time to enable them to furnish correct particulars.

(3.) Meanwhile, there was an intercession by common friends and matters were adjusted, as the outcome of which Exs. B-1 and B-2 came into existence. We are here concerned with Ex. B-1, which deals with the subject-matter of this appeal which is item (1) of A-1 Schedule. By and under that document, in lieu of this item of property, plaintiffs were to get another property described in schedule A annexed to the agreement which was allotted to the share of the defendants in addition to a sum of Rs. 5000.00 payable within six months. It was further agreed that proper document should be executed to give effect to the terms of the agreement. On 1-2-1955, the appellants filed a petition (styled as a counter) praying that the adjustment of the decree in so far as it bears on the porperty in dispute should be recorded. It appears from the material on record and from the judgment, that the decree-holder did not press the execution petition as regards this item of property. Although it does not appear from the orders for what reason the decree-holder had adopted that attitude, it is legitimate to infer that it was because of Ex. C-J. The result was that E. P. 1/1954 was dismissed.