JONNAVITHULA SRINIVASA Vs. PARIMI VENKATA LAKSHMI NARASIAHA SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants in O. S. No. 124/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudiwada had preferred this appeal. The 2nd plaintiff who was impleaded as legal representative of the 1st plaintiff by virtue of the orders in LA. No. 870/91 in O. S. No. 124/87 is the respondent. The first appellant herein filed yet another suit O. S. No. 177/84 as against the defendants shown in the said suit and both the suits were tried together and a common judgment was made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiwada on 24-3-1995.

(2.) IT is not in controversy that on the respective pleadings of the parties, common Issues were settled and common judgment was delivered in both the suits. It is also not in serious controversy that the judgment and decree in O. S. No. ,177/84 had attained finality since the same had not been questioned. But, however, the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 124/87 alone had been questioned and the present appeal had been preferred.

(3.) SRI Ramakrishna, the learned Counsel representing Sri Prabhakar Rao, the Counsel for appellants, would maintain that despite the fact that no appeal had been preferred as against the judgment and decree made in O. S. No. 177/84, the findings recorded in O. S. No. 124/87 can be independently questioned. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and also the Issues settled and would maintain that in the light of the evidence available on record, P. Ws. 1 to 8 and D. Ws. 1 to 8, and also Ex. A. 1 to Ex. A. 6 and Exs. B. 1 to Ex. B. 3, the findings cannot be sustained.