K SURYANARAYANA Vs. K GOPALUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos. 2 to 14 in the appeal are the appellants, since they are transposed as appellant Nos. 27 to 39 by an order dated 6-6-1996 in C.M.P. No. 2096 of 1995. Originally the suit was filed by the first respondent against his brothers for partition of the joint family properties into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him. A preliminary decree was passed on 31-8-1981. Questioning the said decree, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed the appeal. Pending appeal, appellant Nos. 1 to 3 died and their legal representatives are brought on record as appellant Nos. 4 to 26. While the appeal is pending, respondent Nos. 2 to 14 in the appeal who are now transposed as appellant Nos. 27 to 39 filed an application for impleading them as respondents in the appeal since they have purchased various plots from the second defendant and the legal representatives of the first defendant in item 2 of the plaint schedule property which is Ac. 1-13 cents in Survey No. 40/3 known as Manyam land. The total extent of the suit land is 5464 sq. yards, out of which these appellants purchased 2493 sq. yards, leaving a balance of 2971 sq. yards.

(2.) This appeal has a chequered career. The appellants contend that the appeal was heard and judgment was reserved on 22-3-1991 and since the learned Judge who heard the appeal was transferred from this Court before pronouncing the judgment, the appeal was again posted for hearing before my learned brother Justice A.S. Bhate on 10-3-1995 on which date the appeal was dismissed for default. The appellants filed C.M.P. No. 5849 of 1995 to set aside the dismissal order and the same was allowed on 24-8-1995. When the appeal was posted for hearing on 13-2-1995, Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel for the appellants who filed the appeal, reported no instructions. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed as against them. As already stated, respondent Nos. 2 to 14, therefore got themselves transposed as appellant Nos. 27 to 39 and they are prosecuting the appeal.

(3.) In the suit, the third plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-15; while the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. The trial Court after framing necessary issues decreed the suit. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there are any equities in favour of appellant Nos. 27 to 39 in this appeal.