NEKKANTI PADDAYYA Vs. GULLAPALLI VENKATA SURYANARAYANA NARASIMHA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 102/90 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru had preferred A.S.No.955/97. 4th defendant in the said suit is 4th respondent in the Appeal. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 102/90 aforesaid also preferred appeal A.S.No. 1217/97 showing the defendants as respondents 1 to 4. Likewise, the plaintiffs in the connected suit O.S.No. 106/90 filed A.S.No. 134/99 and respondents 1 to 4 in the said appeal are defendants 1 to 4 in the said suit, The 1st defendant in the said suit is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.102/90. Likewise, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.111/94 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru preferred appeal A.S.No. 513/2003. Paddaiah, one of the parties died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Evidence was recorded in O.S.No.102/90 referred to supra and both the matters were disposed of by a Common Judgment. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, D.W.1 to D.W.8, the common evidence in both O.S.Nos.102/90 and 106/90, marked Exs.A-1 to A-17 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 and ultimately granted a preliminary decree to a limited extent in O.S.No.102/90 and to ascertain the future profits for three years on a separate application to be filed by the plaintiffs for the said purpose. It was further observed that while determining the future profits an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the 4th defendant to be deducted from the mesne profits and likewise the suit O.S.No.106/90 was partly decreed directing the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.22,500/- i.e., 45% share in Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of demand i.e., 11-4-1990 till the date of realisation. It is needless to say that the defendants 1 to 3 had preferred Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.102/90 only and no separate Appeal had been filed as against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S No. 106/90. It is also needless to say that common evidence was recorded in both the suits and common findings also had been recorded and the matters are disposed of by Common Judgment by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The 4th defendant in O.S.No. 102/90 had not preferred any independent Appeal evidently for the reason that he is styled to be a mediator or arbitrator ehosen by the contesting parties to the litigation. However certain allegations are made as against the said party. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.111/94 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Eluru having been unsuccessful in a suit for specific performance filed by them preferred A.S.No.5 13/2003. It appears the said matter was decided by yet another learned Judge and in the light of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1 to D.W.6 and also Exs.A-1 to A-10 and also taking into consideration the prior connected litigations O.S.Nos. 102/90 and 106/90 which appear to have been carried by way of Appeals, the learned Judge dismissed the said suit directing the parties to bear their own costs. Though O.S.No. 111/94 was disposed of by a separate Judgment, in the light of the fact that the prior suits O.S.Nos. 102/90 and 106/90 being closely concerned, the said Appeal also is being heard along with the other three connected Appeals, one Appeal filed by the contesting defendants and the other two Appeals preferred by the plaintiffs being aggrieved of decreeing the suits partly and negativing the rest of the relief prayed.

(2.) In the light of the fact that defence was taken in relation to the registration of the firm in question, an application was moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reception of additional evidence, the certified copy of the registration of M/s. Srinivasa Pisci Culture firm. The said application no doubt is being resisted by the contesting parties.

(3.) Pleadings in O.S.No.102/90; Averments made in the plaint : The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint as hereunder :