PADMINI CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY Vs. SIRAJUNNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the cases can be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The C.C.C.A. is filed challenging the order passed in LA. No.1351/1995 in LA. No.854/1984 in O.S. No.42 of 1962 on the file of the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, parties herein have been referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(3.) This is a case of litigation percolating to generations. The suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1935 claiming partition in respect of Matruka properties. However, for various reasons, the suit was not numbered and finally it was numbered in the year 1962 as O.S. No.42 of 1962. A preliminary Decree was passed on 24-11-1970 by the trial Court in which the share of Defendant No.l was determined at 14/104th. The matter was subjected to appeal, but however the said decree became final as far as the daim of Defendant No.1 in various properties including ItemNo.2 of Schedule 'B' was concerned. During the pendency of the litigation, number of Defendants died including Defendant No.l. Therefore, their Legal Representatives were brought on record. In respect of Defendant No.l, Defendants No.23 to 27 were brought on record as his Legal Representatives. It was only in the year 1984, an application was filed in LA. No.854/84 by Defendant No.25 (L.R. of Defendant No. 1) for passing a final decree. Similarly, Defendants No.3 and 6 also filed LA. No.498/84 for similar relief. In 1950 DefendantNo.l sold an extent of Ac.42-35gts. of agricultural lands in S.Nos.93, 94,104,107,108 and 109 of Hakimpet village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad district in favour of one Mr. Upender Reddy, who in turn sold the same to Sri Venkateshwara Goraksha Trust in the year 1953. Subsequently, these lands were purchased by Defendant No.28 in 1981 under agreement of sale and sale deeds were registered in the year 1992. It got impleaded as Respondent No.28 in LA. No.854/84. The lower Court after hearing both the I.As. namely LA. No.874/34 and 493/84 they were dismissed by the trial Court by orders dated 14-2-1994 on the ground that the petitioner supressed the fact that the Court in C.C.C.A. No.27/72 and 188/72 modified the preliminary decree and the said modified decree was not filed and that all the alienees werenot impleaded. Against the said order, Defendant No.5 filed C.R.P. No.700/94 and the same was allowed on 30-8-1994 holding that the lower Court ought to have given an opportunity to file the modified decree. The lower Court was directed to dispose of the LA. within six months. While allowing the C.R.P. this Court made the following observation: