ACHI RAMULU Vs. KUNAPAREDDY VIJAYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, under Section 100 of C.P.C., is filed against the concurrent judgments, rendered in an application filed under Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101 of Order 21 C.P.C., and in an appeal filed against the same.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S.No.213 of 1984 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, against respondents 5 to 12, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed, and A.S.No.165 of 1990, filed by the respondents 5 to 12, against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, was dismissed. After the decree in the suit became final, respondents 1 to 4 filed E.P.No.93 of 1999, at a time, when the delivery of possession of the property was being effected. The deceased-1st appellant filed E.A.No.412 of 1999, under Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101 of Order 21 C.P.C. During the pendency of the application, he died. His legal representatives, being appellants 1 and 2, were brought on record. It was pleaded that the father of the deceased-1st appellant, acquired the suit schedule property in the year 1960, and after his death, the deceased-1st appellant enjoyed the rights of possession over it. He is said to have accorded permission to respondents 5 to 12, to put huts on the land. He pleaded that the decree, between respondents 1 to 4, on the one hand, and respondents 5 to 12, on the other hand, is collusive, and it cannot effect his rights.

(3.) The E.A was resisted on several grounds. It was urged that the third party cannot maintain applications under the provisions, referred to above, and an application under Rule 99 of 21 C.P.C. can be filed only by a party, who is dispossessed in the execution proceedings. The Executing Court dismissed the E.A., through its order dated 20-02-2001. Thereupon, the appellants filed A.S.No.23 of 2001 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam. The appeal was dismissed on 28-12-2006. Hence, this second appeal.