LAWS(APH)-1966-9-18

GADDAMEEDI PEERIAH Vs. NARAYANA RAO

Decided On September 23, 1966
GADDAMEEDI PEERIAH Appellant
V/S
NARAYANA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. S. No. 8/64 on the file of the Munsif Magistrates Court, Narayankhed, was filed by two plaintiffs against twenty defendants praying for a decree on the following terms: (1) It may be declared that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land. (2) The plaintiffs may be put in possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants. (3) The future mesne profits during the pendency of the case till the recovery of the possession (up to the date of return) of the suit land by the plaintiffs. (4) The costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiffs. (5) Any other further relief or any equivalent relief for which the plaintiffs are entitled may be awarded.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that they are the owners of the suit land and are in possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right. While so the defendants took possession of the suit land on 13-12-1961 illegally with the support of the influential persons of the village and some goondas. That is stated to be the cause of action for the suit It is further suited in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the defendants took possession of the suit land by evicting the plaintiffs in bad faith and so the plaintiffs are entitled to sue It appears, that the 6th defendant died on 26-8-1965 but his legal representatives were not brought on record. The 14th defendant died before 6-7-1962. The exact date is not known from the record placed before me, but it appears from the orders of the lower Court that the 14th defendant was served with summons in the suit but he chose to remain ex parte without filing a written statement. In fact six out of twenty defendants remained ex parte without filing their written statements. Those that filed written statements including the 6th defendant, pleaded that the ex parte defendants were not at that time in possession. The suit was filed in the year 1962. On 6-7-1962, the plaintiffs represented to the Court that the 14th defendant died and they would bring his legal representatives on record but so far the legal representatives are not brought on record. On behalf of the defendants two applications, I. As. 19 and 13 of 1988, were filed in the lower Court praying to dismiss the suit in its entirety, as it has abated for the reason that the suit has abated against defendants 6 and 14 and consequently the entire suit abates having regard to the allegations in the plaint and the reliefs claimed. These two applications were dismissed by the lower Court and hence these revision petitions are filed to revise those orders.

(3.) C. R. P. No. 852/66 relates to the prayer for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the legal representatives of the deceased 6th defendant were not brought on record and the suit abated against him and consequently against all the defendants. I find myself unable to appreciate the reasoning of the lower court in its order.