MANTRALA RAJAGOPALAM Vs. VEMURI VENKATA SUBBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which has to be answered in this Letters Patent Appeal, is, where tow distinct decrees are passed in a suit and an appeal is preferred against only one of them, can it be said that it is an appeal against a portion of the decree in a suit and the final decree in such appeal would save limitation for execution of the other decree from which no appeal was filed under Article 182 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

(2.) The facts which give rise to this problem may briefly be stated. The appellant filed O. S. No. 476 of 1944 for possession of about 1 acre and 60 cents of land and in the alternative for partition of the same into three equal shares and for separate possession of one such share. The 1st defendant in the suit is the plaintiffs father and the 2nd defendant is his only brother. The 3rd defendant obtained a sale deed D/- 14-6-1944 from the 1st defendant for a consideration of Rupees 1500/-. The plaintiff contended that the sale was not binding on him.

(3.) On 31-3-1947, a preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to a one-third share in the suit property. it directed the appointment of a Commissioner to partition of the properties into three equal shares and for delivery of possession of one such share to the plaintiff. it further ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits calculated at 3 bags on his share from defendants 1 to 3. It also direct that the future mesne profits would be determined on a separate application.