KALIKI VEERA REDDY Vs. GOTTIGUNTA KODANDARAMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal one of the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the decree for mesne profits given from the date of the suit in favour of the plaintiff by the lower court is not correct in view of the Division Bench decision of this court reported in T N Shetti V. Appalaraju (1) A I R 1975 A P 208. The plaintiff is the auction purchaser of an undivided share of the 2nd defendant. He filed a suit for general partition. A decree is given for partition and also for mesne profits from the date of the suit. It is true that the decision in T N Shetti V. Appalaraju (1) AIR 1975 AP 208 supports the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. But the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that, that decision needs reconsideration in view of the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Basavayya V. Guravayya (2) 1951 (2) M L J 176. I am also of the opinion that T N Shetti V. Appalaraju (1) AIR 1975 A P 208 needs reconsideration. I therefore refer the appeal to a Division Bench. The papers may be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice for orders.

(2.) Pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 15-10-1979 and made herein, this appeal coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 24th day of September 1985 and this day and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and the order of this court dated 15-10-79 and made herein the decree of the Lower court and the records in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr P L N Sarma for Mr M Krishna Mohan Rao advocate for the appellants and of Mr N Subba Reddy advocate for respondent No 1 notice having been dispensed with to respondents 2 to 5 as they remained absent and set exparte in the lower court. The court delivered the following Judgment : -

(3.) Defendants 2, 4 and 6 are the appellants. This appeal comes before us on a reference by a learned single Judge of this court on the ground that the decision reported in T N Shetti Vs, V Appalaraju (1) AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 208. requires reconsideration. Since the whole case is before us we propose to decide not only the question referred but the entire appeal.