The High Court · 2025

;dilGiE:[,'&[]'^?*.il?;il5:"T,?f s.tt'H3:[.xffi :,1i,,\,tg:,1," Sri Syed Anjadulla Hussain ;fi i;6Git:b1Ifi ..N3'il::i1l jlx.,Tl[: jg?3 "?ill,.,Jib?:?.":?f :['o:l?B i:31,1 8#:l:t'l,l: s/o Late Sri sved Narsiruddin Hussaini, Aged AND 1 2 3

4. Sri Syed Arsharltrllah Hussaini, S/o'Late Sri Syed Narsirudclirt l- ussaini' Aged '' iooui 46 Years ()cc N4echanic, 5srisvedSamurrullahHussain,s/o.LatesrisyedNarsiruddirH"rssaini'Aged - iuorf 47 Years ()cc l\/echanic, Resoondents " io 5 are R/o H No 20-2-522' Kakatte' Huss'a ni Alan' Near Uoaern Schco'lYderabad' 6. Smt. Mahab.)gL. nr ' W/o.Late Sri Syed P-asha Hussaini Aoe'i ab )ut 58 years' qyo ufri'nili#E"vrri's" cr'iiiet'r Man'ja'' Ranga Reddv 7. Sri Syed lvlListaf I Hussaini, S/o'Late.Sri.Sy99 P"F Hussairi' Aqed about 47 vears, occ,, Not known, ny';lint'?Gitn;iri'virr"g"' Ghatkesa-[v'andal' Ranga ReddY Distrct occ: House nc 'r District

8. Sri Devakar qctidy, S/o'Not Known' Aged about 40 years Ctcr ' Business' " Hi;"Fii'l; ) )-'t,tsit+, nmnerpet, Eieg-hejaha' Hvderabad (Respondents No.6 to 8 are not necessary to this LA') Res pon de nts/Defendants

9. Ahmedi Begurr W/o Late Syed Anjadullah Hussaini' 10. Syeda Nlm'a t:rrtima D/o Late Syed Aniaduallah Hussain ' '1 1. Syed Husna Fatima D/o Late Syed Anjadullah Hussaini 12.Syed Naseer Jlla Hussaini S/o Late Syed Anjadullah Hur;sair i (All are Rl/o. N Nc 2a-2-522, kakatatte, Hussaini Alam' Near l\'4:d'rrn School' Hyderabad) " '/Proposed Rer;p':rndents 9 to 12' "C.T. amended l.,A.No. 5 of 2018 is carried out in AS'No 163'1 of 2018 aI;'.;#l,i n".p;;;e;;i N;:i;ii i-ni ot'n"'pondents e to l2 vide court Order dated 12.1) 2.2021. l3.Sumaiyya At-rnted, W./o. Late Syed Ahmedulla Hussain' 'A1;et: 50 Years' Occ Housewife,

14.Syeda Farisa /\hmed, D/o. Late Syed Ahmedulla Hussairt A6:ed about 32 Years, Oc:: ll,lusewife, th l5.S.Humerr.rArrted,W/o.AhmedullaBinAbdulRaheemQLrrii';hi,D/o'Late Syed Ahmed -{ussain, aged 31 Years' r 6. Sved Nabeel r\hmed Hussaini, S/o Late Syed Ahmedulla Hu ssain' aged about 28 ,7ears, Occ: Employee

17.Syeda Afra\ttlto. Abdullah Quraishi, aged 30 Years, All are R/o. Hyderabad- H.t\ 5,1l o.20-2-522, kakatatte, Hussaini Alam, Bah rdrr 064.) rpura, ..t,.{,. (Respondents 2 to 12 are not necessary parties) ...Proposed Respondents 13 to 17 . C.T. amended l.A. No. 1.oJ2020 is carried out in AS.No.1 631 of 201g 3:r".T;:i"5","riflt6ll.*. , p", [n.-oi nlJil#Uil 13 b 17vide court Rni:*f:ffi H,fl iH'fi lrirn:$ jf .d*??itl,a*?"s*filx,#il.": g?i:;'l#'.Y3if; f ,BJiruffi E*t'"?,lfli{ii,,f;S,u,?usiness, n*":, S3fl*?iis?I,l* aii-{reffii}:'!gf",f::;:ffi:, 8::-"rt!],',".1','i.ii3li'iltsg"i,"iri??,T"""r:i"Ti".l,l"lBti* il?[&'fl ...lmplead Respondent Nos. 1g to 20. lA NO: 3 OF 2018 Petition under Section.lS'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suooorr or ttre petitiol,1i," irigt' i.irn may be preased ro srAy the operation of Judoment and Decree Jii"J ri'-iiio.r0 passed in o.s.No.5.r of 2005 on the fire of the L Addition"r oi.tri"t ,ni'd"'..ion. Judge, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposat ottne abovelJp"lr .rit ""' IA NO: 40F 2018 Petition under Section 151..cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support "1 1r9 n"ti,9'1, il" iign Court may be pteased to vacate the interim stav orders granted in r.A.No.3 0f"20.1g in AS.No.163.r of 2018 dated 12.10.2018. lA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ir,JHign court may be preased n,|ay ue pleased to receive the materiar papers fired hiere with as additionar ,"i6rirl papers. i Counsel for the Appetlant :Sri Srinivas Velagapudi CounselfortheRespondentNos.l,2,3:SriAKNarasimhaRac Counsel for the Respondent Nos'9 to 17 : Sri R A Chary APPEAL SUIT NO: 34 Appeal under sect ion 96 of C.P.C ag ainst the Judg ment arld Decree Dated 15-11-2010 made in ()ll No.51 of 2005 on the file of the C ourt of th': lll Additional District and Sessions '. L,dge, Ranga ReddY District --', - Between: - Student R/o "Yn"l',i;[' f, T,j; District 8ff l: :,''fr , XE 3ll * 34 yeer; )cc- Housewife *onu,n,ed rq, ar 1(harioR,"t,ff S:!fl1i?g,totu,:ilefl u1,1filmllffi vears. occ ELrstness, jv" "l:wj:.., LliJ^i,r^rai No\,i l,4e( lchal_Malkalgtn Village, Uppal r'l'nat'i' #inJni"aiv bitiitt'torol Nori l'lerlchal-Malkale , :lii::ti"-.sh, li/o sri Babu Rao' ase$ about 25 vears )c:- Student R/o ' il']ft;'. 1-)-i1"- i'n1"x'n'da' secunderabad' g Alladi Vanisrer ' D/o Sri Babu Rao' aged about 23 years Or '6- ' Ilfi;'. if a-i 4. Smt. Viiayataksrmi R/o Railwav tl rrrt"r. . 'W/o "r"tt's'da' "tio] iii)el Chilk'lguta' Secund erabitc' Secunderabad' B H' Jadhav' uS,"-d 3?o't A: -[']: S, ,Y.ffi ,,?V,fl;n SnR: """ii; ---r ^r^^,,+ ro,oqra 3:c- Housewife, R/o 6. smt. D. AnusrH,w/o D. srinivas, aged about'"'",yh?T,]; 'r;?irirlli'Hdd'ore. " il'.it[5-.6 iorj'sot ' vent<at Reddv Nasar' xam 7. Smt. J Yadornma' D/o Narasimha',9^S:1..'bo't 56 v':ars' Occ- Private service, Rro l- \o d' i;;;;lf i;ruvu Cdlonv' Konditept" Vledras aoed at'ort 46 years' occ- B. smt. s. pan,athamma, w/o sri Housewife r,:, nliioliel5-!ool:a7rz' Kesavu*tiamv Nagar' Jivaguda' ^s--BuJg]ll: e tr,4. Rukkamma, w/o.Late Roop Lal,.Ase .9 ,,fi3i,ir?",i;,L"r'&""[1$'#,?'3to' " i;affi;;; < i'ionv, chengicherla' Ghatkesar I 10.NI. Narsin ha l'laik, S/o Late Roop Lal' Age 40 vears Oct- i ousehold' R/o 3- 4. lndiranasar c"B;:i:ti;;E#ii'' Er'u*6sir Man ja ' Ranga Reddv District 11. M. Venkatesh, S/o Late Roop Lal'^Age 37 years Occ- -1o rsehold' FUo 3-4' lndiranagar rirronv,'ir,"engi"ri-"r'ii'cr]zir.".ri Mandal. Ra rgzr Reddy District 12.H. Manohar Flaj, S/o Late H Bansilal Ji' Age 57 years' Fvt =mployee' R/o'3- '' b:45d, 5r"o,r,:liitivi,, kachiguda, Hvderabad' 13. H. Ramakrisrrna, S/o.Late H. Bansilal Ji, Age 55 years, F vt. Employee, Fi/o.3- HYderabad' " 3-836, Sundo| Nilayam, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

14.H. Jawahar Riaj, S/o.Late H. Bansilal Ji, Age 53 years, Pvi.Ernployee, Fl/o.3-3- 836, Sunder f\ilayam, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

15.H. Hari Narar/an Raj, S/o.Late H. Bansilal Ji, Age S1 ye,trs, R/o.3-3-836, Sunder Nilaydm, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. , l I I I l I .,.:' ---5- 'u [;',t3Hitl,rf;!,7;irie*o?E:""u' Ji' Ase 62 vears, Rr/o3-3-836, sunder " il;,#3ffi:^T3* #f,f?lir5';"Bansiiar Ji, Ase 78 vears, Ri/o 3-3-836, sunder AND ..Appellants/proposed Appellants I . Sri Syed Ahmedulla Hussain,((died as per LRs Resirondents Nos..l 3 to .l 7) 2. Sri Syed Anjadulla Hussain, (died as per LRs Respondents Nos.9 to .12) 'fl:x'jro#,..j,'1,l"g;rhlY",iR'sid-?gJ)3:.,{:lj#,'l,tss#,Xfffl j0",, ,

4. Sri Syed Arshadullah H -n*{liE"hrj,Sffi ;['i[:i}r:Ai"i:,1:^ffi B.]s;r:*:,ffi H:ffi t:#f ,

5. Sd Syed Samunullah Hr ),sa,s,.occ:ve;"i:it #31?ll^r3'rr.-t_,33?i[ii:1,[11];,lpii,i,i",,]:fl." School, Hyderabad. - u4a"\dr\dLre' 6SmtY,ahabeqxru;Si:",f

7. Sri Syed Mustafa Hussai l""ril^r"r,,:rfi e,J":EH5[,x|i1}S:#.:ffi:" [:tt*";i"ii?'[t'.","#;zs"i1'B'3'",i;fi :531x"1?'Jlifl,:o,e:i*iln, 'Ri:?:x,Tz:Ii8gIl,?,"^}.i#;s[t4r''"".i,,fl ::H,,rio"[%ffi occ-Business, (Respondents No.6 to g are not necessary parties to this appeal)

9. Ahmedi Begum, W/o. Late Syed Anjadullah Hussaini 10.Syeda Nimra Fatima, D/o. Late Syed Anjadullah Hussain 1't. Syed Husna Fatima, D/o. Late Syed Anjadultah Hussain 12. Syed Naseer Ulla Hussaini, S/o. Late Syed Anjadullah Hussain (Respondents g to 12 are R:/o. H.No.20_2_252, Kokatatte, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad) . "C.T. amended l.A. No. 5 of 2019 is carried out in AS.No.34 of 2O19 deceased Respondent No.2 per LRs of neiponuents g to 12 viae cJrt Order dated 12.02.2021. r' <-' 'b W/o. Late SYed Anjadullah Hussain' Agecl tiO 7ears, Occ' Housewife l3.SumaiYYa Ahmerl, 14.Sveda Farisa Ahmed, D/o. Late Syed Anjadullah HuSSain, Agrld lbout 32 n'' D/o Late y6ars, Occ. Hou';ewtte SYed Ahmedi Hrrs'saln' I 1 5 s H u mera tI r,',1r, -Y",\0Xf:SJl]i&' ]gtg:[3]ir"J.?$I+5 ,t a.;;; r.t"n""t nnn'to Hussaini' s/o Late Syed Ahmedulla Hur;sz in' Aged '" i6JJt is Grrs Crcc' EmPloYee 17.Syeda Afra. \,V/r: Abdullah Quraishi' Aged 30 years ' o zo-z-szz' Kakatatte' H u s;s r i n i Ar am' S"r'f,";]3:ij: J id':.ll s:s$".Sf "c.r. amended l{ fo. 1 or 2o20 is- carried out,Jiii;*i;'r1.St"1tJ'1 ;il;;d oiOer aated 12.02 ii;;pondent No'l per LRs of Respono "'2021' ... Proposed Responclert Nos'13 to 17 :Sri Srinivas VelagaPudi Counsel for the APPellants Counsel for the Respondent Nos'3 & 5 : Sri A K Narasimha Ra'> Counsel for the Respondent Nos'9 to 17 : Sri R A Chary The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT Nos.16B1 OF.2018 6694 OF 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since the lzs involved in these appeals are same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment

2. The appellants in these appeals are third parties to the suit frled by respondents/piaintiffs, against the respondents/defendalts ulde OS.No.S1 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District, at LB.Nagar, Hyderabad, seeking partition and separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule property. The said suit was decreed with costs uid.e jud,gment dated 15.11.2010 and directing the partition of plaint schedule properties in two equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs and the other share to the defendants. Aggrieved thereby, these appeals are filed contending that they are necessarJr parties to the said suit. I I I i I i 1 t I 1 i : i I '1' 2 SKS, J AS 163I io 3 -4 2019 3 The brief facts of the cases are that the piain tiffs ' who of Syed Naseemddin Hussaini ar': se eking 616 1fi6 r;ot- s partition ,rf t he properties that originally belonge'1 to their Lale SYed Ahmadullah Fut sainr' Ahmadullah Hussaini passed r'I!'a / on s everal Lale Sl."d grandratl Ler behind leaving

01.01.1965 propertie's, including agricultural 35 to 37, 96, lO2, 105, 106, and 145' Sy.Nos.1, Z After his d : lth, his two sons, Syed Naseeruddin Ht ssainr and Sved Fa sha Hussaini, partitioned the propertit s lmong lald s themsei','esThesaidpartitionwasformalizedirLe'vritten document rlated 15.10 1966 and as per this pa lition' Syed Pr .s;ha Hussaini received prop€ r' Ier i lO2, 105, an(' Sy.Nos.i'i5, 37, 96, while Syerl Naseeruddin Hussaini received pr'l1rer ties in Sy.Nos. l, '2, 36, and 145. One of the propertiesir a mango ald ta.mari:rd garden in Sy.No.34, was kept joint rn ith the underslan,ling that the sons would enjoy ts fruits alternat.ell . This arrangement continued until tl-rt death of 106' Syed Nase,:--uddin Hussaini on 30.04.1993. SKS, J AS_163t_2018_34_2019 .,

4. After the death of Syed Naseeruddin Hussaini, the plaintiffs demanded partition from the defendants, D1 and D2 who are the wife and son of Syed Pasha Hussaini However, Dl and D2 refused to partitioir oi the properties and instead attempted to sell them. The plaintiffs learned that D1 and D2 had entered into al agreement of sale with D3 in respect of the schedule properfy. In response, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to D 1 ald D2 on 17 .Ol .2OO5. As the dispute remained unresolved, the plaintiffs filed the said suit for partition, seeking to divide the properties among the legal heirs of Late Syed Ahmadullah Hussaini. Being aggrieved by partition of suit between the plaintiffs and defendalts, the appellants iiled these appeals chalienging the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2O10 directing the partition of plaint schedule properties in two equal shares and alrotment of one such share to the plaintiffs and the other share to the defendants. Hence, these appeals.

5. Heard Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for appellants, Sri RA.Chary, and Sri AK.Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for respondents. 4 SKS, J A5-163I t0 ,i:4-2019 i L€'a rn(r(l counsel for appellants submitted t ha t the 6. trial Crturt committed grave error by not conside ^ing the true niat-.lr( oi the suit schedule property' and 'h€ t the properl.\,' wrr s not an agricultural land' as ilescribe I n the plaint, but : ather comprised of several houses ald plots rvith rvell-dr:r'eloped roads and civic amenities like elec tricity and watr:r li:res. He contended that the trial Corrrt fa led to considerthefactthatthepersonsinactualposs':ssionof the propcr ty, including the appellants' were nrt made parties t o rh e suit, and that ihe stme was a fatal rlef ':ct' as the plairrtiftsr and defendants had colluded to obtair a decree behind thtl back of the real parties in posses si( 'n' He lamentecl that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendiln s were in poss,::ssrion of the suit property' and that the :'ar re is a clearinrlicationthatthesuitwasnotgenuine'bu:rrthera collusive i: ttempt to obtain a decree that could be I rsed to harass tht :eal parties in possessron' FIe rr;serted that the suit u/as liable to br: dir 'missed 7 . for nor -joi:rder of necessarJ/ pa-rties, contendinE t rat the plaintifls hzLd deliberately omitted to implead the r,ral parties in possr:ssir>n, including the appellants, in order t,r c btain a I l I I 1 I I l

1. 5 SKS, J AS_ I 63 t_20I 8_34_20 I 9 decree that could br used to their advanta*e' He averred that the triar court failed to consider the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants had a comrton interest in obtaining a decree, and that they had colluded to achieve this objective. He incessantly contended that the impugled judgment under appea-l rriolated the principles of nafura_l justice, as the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the appellants and other real parties in possession had not been made parties to the suit, and that they had been denied an opportunity to present their case, which comes under crear violation of the princi pre of aud.i arteram partem, which requires that all parties who may be affected by a judgment must be given an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, he prayed this Court to aliow the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2O1O.

8. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for appellants and submitted that the appeals itself are not maintainable as they challenge the preliminary decree passed in the year 2010, whereas, the final decree was passed in the year 2013 and possession ! 6 ;KS, J As-l631-201 ]-3 -2019 was deliver( (l to the respondents in the year 1l( 1t ' He contenclerl t'tat the appellants, who claim to be plct o$ ners' have no ri5,:t to challenge the decree passecl by 'ht' trial Court, a:rd that they ought to have frled clhim petitions in the exe,cirtl cn proceedings instead of appealing agrrir st the prelimin err' decree' He further contended that the pr ryer of the appeiirlrts' is based on sale deeds that arr: vo id and ab.initic,.l.s,theywereexecutedbypersonswh.l]radno exclusi'.'t lights or title over the entire property l e lointed out tbat trr': sale deeds did not contain any recital re larding the 11,:lir r: ry of physical possession of the 1 rnd to C.Divaka ReddY, and that there were no t menlionerl in the sale deed nor any pial annexed to identify ndaries 'or' or loca [iz, rhe sold property. g. ile t-rcessantiy contended that the appellan :s rave not produr:ed lhe origina-l sale deed or proved their cw nership, and 1.hat they have no right to claim the entire l)rc perty as per tb e p -eliminary decree passed by the trieil C lurt. He rarnenleci .hat if the appellants have any claim, thry OU$ht to havt. c_raimed it from their vendors on]y, and nct l-om the decree, holders. He potnted out 7 AS_I631_20t8_34_20 SKS, J t 9 C. Divakar Reddy, the vendor of the appellantr '1-Pu'a,rs' was a party to the suit and did nof fila n" any appeal or counterclaim' He averred that the .*ot re is fatal to the contention of the appellants,, a5 they are not claiming aly ilght from their vendor, and that the alleged vendor,s vendor who got half of the larrd is also not a party to the appeal. He asserted that the appeals are barred by limitation, as they were filed after a lapse of eight years frorn the date of the preliminary decree, and that the appeliants have suppressed material facts, including the passing of the final decree and the execution proceedings, and that this is sufficient ground to dismiss the appeal. i0. In addition, learned counsel for respondents articulated that A.S.No.95 4 of 2Olg was frled by some of the plot owners challenging the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.S1 of 2OO5 and the salne was dismissed, observing that the appellants have the remedy of filing claim petitions under Order XXI Rule 58 CpC in the execution proceedings pending before the trial Court. He further submitted that E.P.No.29 of 2013 was filed by the respondents, decreed holders, for delivery of possession of the suit properLy, 1 8 SKS, .I AS,1631-201 8-31-2019 whereun,lel the exe share of th respon on 03.05 2 L8 and before the cution Court deiivered possess'i('n lf the dents to an extent of Acs 06']5 Cuntas the appellalts did not file any otljt ctions the executi.on Court' clilming railiff or before over the said small Plots' He asserted that the Plots claim€ d I )Y the of the their ;:i ghi s execut-i:ln Court excluded appella nt' from the delivery of possession' in v ev staY orrle :; Passed bY thrs Court in the aPPeals f'lerl bY the plot or,r'r e rs. Therefore' he conclud'ed his st tbl nissrons averrittg lllat the appeals are devoid of merits' lrote in iaw and ,:tr f rr:ts, and prayed this Court to dismiss th: same' 1 1 . Nr r,' the points for consideration are 1I II] I\ W r:ther the plaintiffs in O.S.No 51 of 2025 a; e r ntitled for p{ :htron and for equal share along with defe:ertar ts ? \[ irether the subject properties are alreadlr par tit oned ? S hether the properties were partitioned in terrns of p:rrtition deed dated 15.10.1966 ? \\.'lether the plaintiffs were not in joint porsses;ion of the s rl)ject properties, as contended in written stz-te nent ? \l h ether the impugned judgment requires inte rference of tI i.r Court ? 9 SKS, J AS_163 r_20t 6_34_2019 POINT Nos.I to V:

12. Having regard to the rival submissions, and on goilg through the material placed on record, it_. is noted that originally, the plaintiffs frled suit for partition of suit schedule property i.e., in relation to survey No.34, stating that there is a partition deed between the brothers, according to which set of properties were divided into equal shares between them, except for the propert5r in survey No.34 which was in possession of elder brother, whereas, there is a recital in the said partition deed that the fruits of survey No.34 be enjoyed by both sons, in a_lternate years. Therefore, from the date of partition deed they were en3oying the same and after the death of Dl, they claimed partition for the said property but they were denied the same, as such, suit was frled.

13. On going through the partition deed filed by the plaintiffs under Ex.Al, it is seen that there is recital in the said deed with regard to survey No.34 that the brothers would have equal shares and they would enjoy the fruits of tJle said properfy altemately, whereas, the contention of 10 SKS, J AS 1631 20lti 3+ 2019 defenda.nl b 'lore the trial Court was that only to th': e rtent of fmits of t:re propert5r i e , the margo and tamarind rees' the fruits, v c,uld be shared equally and that in t he said partitiorL de:rl it rvas clearly shown that survey N'r'34 is in occupation rl-rcl possession of Dl, therefore' they are er titied for the said ,;hare of property' The recitals in the trar tition deedrvouldclearlyshowthatthe'brothersareharri;lgequal shares of t le property, though the same was r-rrLdt r the possesslon of elder brother. Further, the recitirl s 'vould clearly r:lari .i' that both parties are having equal sl-rare in the said proper l". Therefore, there is no force in the t:cnt:ntion of defenclar t that they were exclusive owner and pos:;essor of the prop''r tv in survey No.34, as such, there is a lsolutely no illegzr.lit in the judgment of the trial Court' ov:r the aspect o' p |lition deed.

14. Re've-ting to the appeals on hand which arr: filed by third par.i:s contending that they are subs:quent purcha.sert and that being so, though they were 'le(essary parties l-o lte suit, they were not made parties as tl re said suit was ia collusive suit of plaintiffs and clefer:dants' Further, tl : t in the year 1979 itself D 1 and D2 solrl t. re said 71, SKS, J AS_163 r_2018_34_20 r9 property to D3 and D3 in turn, sold the same to various purchasers arrd that appellalts purchased the property from the subsequent purchasers of D3. At this stage, it is imperative to note that earlier, some of the subsequent purchasers filed appeal before this Court ui.d.e A.S.No.954 of 2018 whereunder, this Court observed ttrat they are required to file claim petitions before the trial Court instead of preferring appeats, as such, the appellants therein hled claim petitions before trial Court in E.p.No.29 of 2O13 and the record shows that the said claim petitions were dismissed by the trial Court. Further, as seen from the record, it is to be noted that the subject property was purchased subsequent to fiiing of suit ald the claim petitions were dismissed observing that claim petitioners therein were pendente lite purchasers and in the present cases also, some of the purchasers are pendente lite purchasers and they are challenging the partition itself, but there is no such illegality in the judgment of the tr:ia_l Court in this regard, as it is clear that survey No.34 is a joint property. l I I I 72 SKS, J AS r631 110 i8-i 4-2019

15. Perus:, of record would reveal that in A S 'N'l'954 of 2018 I..r\ Nc . . of 2018 seeking leave to appeal and l l 'No'3 of 2O 1 8 ss, [:ing to condone the inordinate cielay of 267 6 days in. pr:lerrrng appeal challenging the judgrn:n. and decree rlate 1 15.11.2010 passed in O S No 51/20t)5 were frled, rvhicl were dismissed along with the apor:a1 itself wheretrndet it was observed that 'in case the oppellar ts are still in trxrss '.s-slon o/ the plots, to direct that they shrt[l tot be disposse ssr ct from the total extent of 1OO3 squanz 11a rds of lond for ,t 1'=iod of four weeks from todag ' to enabl'z ttlem to fiLe their cloun petitions, in the pending execution proceedings, in the m.ea,ttuhile. Needless to state that, in case ntt such petition is rited. tt-tithin the aforesaid period of J'ou r tueeks, executiott lryoceedings moA go on'. Tlnat being so' record would sho',r that possession was already delive re d to the respondcnl:i herein, whereunder, they excluded plot I\ os'25, 91 ancl c)4, zLnd they already left the plots which'"vtre under challenge rLtrd it was mentioned that stay was granted by this Court rr another Plot number.

16. In vi:rv of the above, when there is no iilegality in the decree of t: ial Court, the appellants herein cannot :Laim the _ '_ .. 1..'i,*,e{:1.... &19.. 13 SKS, J AS 163l_2018_34_20 19 l properties stating that they are not made as parties to decree. Further, in the evidence aJfrdavit of DW.2 it was stated that he purchased plot bearing Nos.144 and 145, arrd in his cross examination he admitted that there are tamarind and mango trees in survey No.34. That being so, when it is clearly seen that D2 admitted that proper$r is in possession of third party in his cross examination, the same was considered by the trial Court and suit was decreed thereof. Therefore, it can be observed that there a_re no illegalities or irregularities in the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2010 warranting interference of this Court. There are no just and proper grounds in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point Nos.I to V are answered

77. In the result, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if aly pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL D UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

2. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI RA CHARY, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:151A412025 ,/'/. /^1/ ',,' ) t i. COMMON JUDGMENT AS.No.1631 of 2018 AND 34 OF 2019 ' -. 5 r;t f s 2 c) * lrA ,luit 2[6 :i Pi. "- DISMISSING THE BOTH APPEAL SUITS WITHOUT COSTS ( \-i- J