SITARAMA SASTRY Vs. SUNDARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Veluri Gopalakrishnamurthy filed O. S. No. 17 of 1948 in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Eluru, praying for partition of plaint schedule properties and for separate possession of his share. His brother, Veluri Seetharama Sastry, filed O.S. No. 18 of 1948 for partition and for separate possession of his share. Each of them asked for share out of joint family property which originally belonged to the joint family of their father, V Buchanna Sastry (V. B. S,) and three sons including two plaintiffs, The learned Subordinate Judge tried two suits together and awarded a decree regarding certain items. Krisnamurthy filed A. S. No. 105 of 1953 and Seetharama Sastry filed A. S. No. 180 of 1953 in the District Court, West Godavari. The learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari, heard the two appeals together and passed a common judgment in which he held that the alienations unler two documents(Exhibit B-20and Exhibit B-19) regarding item 9 in rhe 'B' Schedale, in O.S. No. 17 of 1948 (which is item 6 in plaint 'B' Schedule in O. S. No. 18 ot 1948) were not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and he awarded a decree for partition and for separate possession to each plaintiff of one-eighth share ot this item. Seetharama Sastry filed S. A. No. 750 of 1959 and Krishnamutthy tiled S. A No, 751 of 1959 against the common judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. By common consent, the two appeals were heard together by a Division Bench consisting of Chandra Reddy, C. J. and myself. Along with these two appeals, we also heard a memorandum of cross objections which was filed by some defendants contending that the alienations under Exhibits B-20 and B-19 were valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Shri. Ch. Sankara Sastry argued two appeals on behalf ot the appelants in great detail but he did not urge before us that the one-eighth share awarded by the learned Additional Distect Judge was wrongly awarded instad of onefourth share which was the correct share. I pronounced judgment of the Division Bench sitting singly in my chambers. While I was pronouncing judgment Shri T. Veerabhadrayya, who appeared before me on behalf of the appellant mentioned that the one-eighth share mentioned in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was not correct and that he ought to have mentioned one-fourth share. Shri P. P. Surya Rao, who appeared for the respondents at that time did not agree with the statement of Shri T. Veerabhadrayya. I come pleted pronouncing the judgment of the Division Bench on 18th November. 1963, dismissing S. A. Nos. 750 and 751 of 1959 and also dismissing the Memorandum of cross-objections. Subsequently, Shri T, Veerabhadrayya filed these petitions, C. M. P. Nos. 11656 and 11657 of 1964 on 6th June 1964. He also filed along with than S R. No. 22524 of 1964 together with a petition (C. M.P. No. 11653 of 1964) for excusing delay in filing S. R. No. 22524 of 1964. I allowed that petition, Thereupon. S. R. No. 22524 of 1964 was numbered as C. M. P. No, 1147 of 1965. C. M. P. No. 11654 of 1964 was filed to dispense with certified copy of judgment I allowed it.

(2.) C. M. P. No. 11657 of 1964" by Krishnamurthy and C. M. P. No. 1147 of 1965 by Seetharama Sastry praying for reviewing the Beach judgment in S. A, Nos. 750 and 751 of 1959 by granting decree for pertition and separate possession of one-fourth share instead of one-eighth share in kern 9 out of plaint 'B' Schedule aa mentioned in O. S. No. 17 of 1948, C. M. P. Not. 11655 and 11656 of 1964 are filed to amend the decree and judgment.

(3.) Shri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, contends that I, sitting singly, have jurisdiction to pass order on the review petitions. This contention is correct in view of the express wording of Order 47, rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, and the decision of the Madras High Court in Chenna Reddy, In re # 1 Order 47, rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, runs as follows: