SANAGAVARAPU VENKATA SUBBAIAH SARMA Vs. KARUTHOTA GALIB SALICB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S.No.56 of 1973 was tiled by the plaintiff-appellant herein in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole, A.S.No.787 of 1983 arises out of O.S.No.56 of 1973. Transfer A.S.No.2760 of 1985 arises out of O.S.No.28 of 1977 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole. Transfer A.S.No.2758 of 1985 arises out of O.S.No.30 of 1977 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole. O.S.No.28 of 1977 was filed by one Dattula Suryanarayana, who was the plaintiff in the suit. O.S.No.30 of 1977 was also filed by Battula Suryanarayana. All the suits were disposed of by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole by a common judgment. O.S.No.56 of 1973 was dismissed in respect of B to F schedule properties. It was declared that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of A schedule properties from the 6th Defendant therein except the properties settled on the 6th Defendant under Ex.B-9. The plaintiff,was allowed to file a separate petition for determination of mesne profits both past and future. The plaintiff and the 6th Defendant were made to bear their respective costs. O.S.No.28 of 1977 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein against both the defendants jointly and severally. They were further directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. O.S.No.30 of 1977 was dismissed against the first defendant and against the second defendant it was decreed with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation.

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid common judgment and decrees of the Court below, the appellants have approached this Court on various grounds as stated in the appeal memos.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties in three different suits, it is necessary to narrate few facts as follows: O.S.No.56 of 1973 was filed by the plaintiff for possession of plaint A, B, C, D and E schedule properties and to put the plaintiff in plaint A schedule properties and to direct the 6th Defendant to deliver B, C, D and E movables to the plaintiff and if she fails to hand over the same to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff had prayed for a money decree against the 6th Defendant equivalent to the value of movables with interest from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. It was further prayed that the 6th Defendant be directed to render the accounts of outstanding as well as income of the suit properties from 1961 onwards till the date i.e.. when the suit is converted into one for possession and to pass a decree against the 6th Defendant personally and also against the properties of the first defendant, which are in the hands of 6th Defendant, for the amount found due to the plaintiff on payment of requisite Court fee and for future interest.