CHITTURI PERRAJU Vs. YEDNAPUDI VENKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of cases provides a classical illustration of abuse of processes of Court. They arise in execution. The suit was filed in the year 1941 and a decree therein was passed in 1942. Though nearly 27 long years have gone by, the curtain is not yet drawn on the litigation and the parties still continue to be at loggerheads. The parties have taken recourse to every available and conceivable stratagem in fighting each other with the result that they have not reached the stage of finality of that dispute.

(2.) The properties which are the subject-matter of the execution and the others, originally belonged to the second defendant in O. S. 674/41 D. M. C. Bandar. On 6-3-1937 he executed Ex. P-1, a settlement deed in favour of his wife. the first defendant, in respect of nearly Ac. 21-69 cents. The first defendant. in her turn, executed Ex. P-2 another settlement deed on 5-8-1939, conveying about Ac. 7-35 cents to the plaintiffs who are her daughter's sons and another extent of 6 acres to her daughter Annapoornamma. The third defendant is said to have been doped by defendants 1 and 2 in 1940. The first defendant executed yet another settlement deed Ex. P-4 on 6-3-1940 in favour of the third defendant, conveying to him properties which were not covered by Ex. P-2. Evidently, some disputes arose between the parties . Consequently, the plaints filed O. S. No. 674 of 1941 in the District Munsif's Court, Bandar for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession of properties covered by Ex. P-2. The present defendants 1 to 3 were defendants in that suit. After contest, that suit was decreed on 28-11-1942. A. S. No. 167/43 filed on behalf of the third defendant the decree was allowed. The plaintiffs carried the matter in second appeal to the High Court of Madras in S. A. No. 1151 of 1944. There was a compromise between the parties at that stage and a compromise preliminary decree was passed in the second appeal on 3-91945. However, the natural mother of the minor third defendant filed O. S. No. 109 of 1946 for setting aside that compromise decree, alleging that the minor was not properly represented in the prior proceedings and the compromise therein was not beneficial to him. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed I. A. No. 584 of 1946 to pass a final decree in accordance with the compromise decree in O. S. No. 674 of 1941. After the Commissioner filed his report in regard to the actual partition of the different items of the property in accordance with the terms of the compromise. a final decree was passed on 15-7-1947. The Commissioner took elaborate pains to divide the properties by metes and bound. In order to help implementation of the terms of the compromise decree, he prepared six schedules and five plans in accordance with which he recommended the partition to be effected. 'A' schedule showed the details of the properties to which the plaintiffs were immediately entitled to possession. A-1 schedule related to the properties which were allotted to the plaintiffs in which D-1 was given life interest. In A-2 schedule, the properties in which D-2 was given life interest with remainder estate to the plaintiffs were shown. Similarly properties which were allotted to the third defendant with immediate possession were shown in the B schedule. B-1 schedule contained properties which were allotted to him and in which the first defendant was given life interest. Likewise B-2 schedule showed the details of the properties which were allotted to the third defendant and in which life interest was given to the second defendant. The five plans showed how the division as per these schedules should be actually made on the land. To execute this final decree, the plaintiffs filed E. P. No. 104 of 1948 on 31-3-1948 A schedule properties were delivered to them. A few months thereafter, O. S. No. 109 of 1946 filed on behalf of the third defendant for setting aside the compromise decree was dismissed on 4-9-1948, after repelling the contentions advanced on his behalf. A. S. No. 494 of 1949 was filled in the High Court of Madras against the dismissal of the suit. During the pendency of that appeal, a stay was sought and obtained in C. M. P. No. 6493 of 1949 on 24-10-1949, of the execution of the compromise decree passed in S. A. No. 1151 of 1944. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed . A. No. 1237 of 1948 for mesne profits on the schedule properties which they had taken delivery of and they were awarded to them by the court on 2-2-1950., On 26-4-1950 the second defendant died. On his death, A-2 schedule properties reverted to the plaintiffs and B-3 schedule properties reverted to the third defendant as per the compromise preliminary decree and the final decree. On behalf of the third defendant, the decree directing payment of mesne profits passed in I. A. No. 1237 of 1948 was appealed against in A. S. No. 74 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court Bandar. That was, however, dismissed, A. S. No. 494 of 1949 on the file of the High Court of Madras filed against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 109 of 1946 was dismissed on 7-78-1952. Thus, the decision rejecting the third defendant's suit for setting aside the compromise decree became final. Thereupon, on 17-3-1953 to recover mesne profits from A schedule properties awarded to them in Rae. A. No. 1237 of 1948. As a counter blast, E. A. No. 1091 of 1953 was filed on 29-7-1953 on behalf of the third defendant, for redelivering the A schedule lands that had been delivered to the plaintiff in E. P. No. 104/48. E. P. No. 160 of 1953 to recover mesne profits from A schedule was granted on 27-8-1953. On 11-8-54 E. A. 1091 of 1953 for redelivery of the A schedule properties filed on behalf of the third defendant was dismissed. Since the second defendant had died, the plaintiffs became entitled to take possession of the A-2 schedule properties as per the compromise decree and accordingly, they filed an execution petition for delivery of those properties on 88- 1955. That E. P. was rejected on 1-9-1955 without even being numbered. The plaintiffs again filed E. P. No. 248 of 1958 on 20-1-1958 for delivery of the A2 schedule properties. The mesne profits awarded in I. A. No. 1237 of 1948 were deposited into Court on behalf of the third defendant on 1-3-1958. An objection was raised on behalf of the third defendant to E. P. No. 248 of 1958 that it was barred by time. The Court rejected this objection and held on 4-8-1958 as a preliminary point, that the E. P. was in time. The third defendant carried this decision in appeal and second appeal about the bar of limitation. Both of them were dismissed. In the meanwhile, delivery proceedings in respect of the A-2 schedule properties were started. On 9-1-1959 the Amin returned the delivery warrant stating that delivery could not be effect as it was difficult to locate the A-2 schedules property on the land. The Amin's return was based on the report of the Karnam of the village dated 7-1-1959, who said in his report that the survey numbers as mentioned in the decree did not exist. Consequently, on 6-3-1959 the plaintiffs filed I. A. No. 808 of 1959 in the District Munsif's Court, Bandar for amendment of the survey numbers as they were stated in the decree. On 16-4-1959 the Court directed in E. P. No. 248 of 1958 that the decree-holder may renew his execution petition after the disposal of the amendment petition I. A. No. 808 of 1959. Thereupon, the third defendant filed on 20-7-1959 E. A. No. 1095 of 1959 for restitution of mesne profits which he had deposited into Court on 1-3-1959 and E. A. No. 1096 of 1959 for redelivery of A schedule properties. The plaintiffs' application, I. A. No. 808 of 1959 for the amendment of the decree was dismissed by the District Munsif's Court on 1-10-1959 saying that it has no jurisdiction to do so. The plaintiffs once again filed an execution petition for delivery of A-2 schedule properties in E. P. No. 17 of 1960 on 9-12-1959. That execution petition was, however, dismissed on 29-2-1960, was, however, dismissed on 29-2-1960, for non-prosecution of amendment proceedings before proper authorities. The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal in A. S. No. 46 of 1960. The parties filed a joint memo therein on 15-11-1960 that item 3 of A-2 schedule could be identified. On the basis of this joint memo. the appellate Court allowed A. S. No. 46 of 1960 in respect of Item 3 and dismissed it in respect of Items 1 and 2 of A-2 schedule. C. M. S. A. No. 38 of 1961l was filed by the plaintiffs in the High Court against the dismissal of their appeal A. S. No. 46 of 1960 in so far as Items 1 and 2 of A-2 schedule were concerned. They also filed E. P. No. 28 of 1962 for delivery of Item 3 of A-2 schedule, which was admitted by the third defendant to be identified and in third defendant to be identified and in respect of which A. S. No. 46 of 1960 was allowed. E. A. Nos. 1095 and 1096 filled by the third respondent for restitution of mesne profits and for redelivery of A schedule properties were renumbered as E. A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1960 respectively and both of them were dismissed on 9-71964. Along with them E. P. No. 28 of 1962 filed by the plaintiffs for delivery of Item 3 of A-2 schedule was also heard and disposed of by a common order. That E. P. was granted, Basi Reddy J. (as he then was), dismissed on 26-10-1964 C. M. S. A. No. 38 of 1961 filed by the plaintiffs in so far as Items 1 and 2 of the A-2 schedule were concerned. It is against this decision that L. P. A. 177 of 1964 has been filed by the plaintiffs for delivery of Item 3 of A-2 schedule was also heard and disposed of by a common order. That E. P. was granted, Basi Reddy J. (as he then was), dismissed on 26-10-1964 C. M. S. A. No. 38 of 1961' filed by the plaintiffs in so far as Items 1 and 2 of the A-2 schedule were concerned. It is against this decision that L. P. A. 177 of 1964 has been filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also filled E. P. No. 10 of 1966, which was practically renewal of E. P. No. 28 of 1962. for delivery of the property described inn Item 2 of the A-2 schedule. This execution was granted by the Court of first instance on 30th of September, 1966. However, the third defendant preferred A. S. No. 12 of 1967 against this order to the Subordinate Judge's Court. Machilipatnam. In view of Basi Reddy J's decision in C. M. S. A. No. 38 of 1961, this appeal was allowed and the E. P. was dismissed. C. M. S. A. No. 14 of 1968 is directed against the dismissal of A. S. No. 12 of 1967, by the plaintiffs. The third defendant had filed A. S. Nos. 3 and 6 of 1965 on the file of the sub-Court Bandar against the dismissal of his petitions in E. A. Nos. 5 and 4 of 1960. respectively. Both the appeals were dismissed and the third defendant filed C. M. S. A. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1968 against these two orders. dismissing A. S. Nos. 3 and 6 of 1965. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed C. M. P. No. 10875 of 1966 in the High Court of Madras for amendment of the schedule in the decree is S. A. No. 1151 of 1944 and since the matter is within the purview of this Court, it was returned by the Madras High Court Andhra-presented in this Court. This is the chronological sequence of the tortuous litigation that has been carried on by the parties so far and this is how these matters before us have arisen.

(3.) The above narration of fact shows that all these matters are intrinsically connected with each others and can be conveniently considered and disposed of together. We, therefore, propose to dispose them of in a common order.