It was the further case of the appellants that they were in possession of the lands and had companystructed pucca houses thereon.
In pursuance of the preliminary decree the High Court appointed a Commissioner for division of the property in terms of the decree.
That is how the appeals were placed before the Division Bench which disposed them of by the judgment under challenge.
The gist of their case was that the late Nawab Khurshed Jah Pygah administration had granted pattas in favour of several cultivators and supplementary sethwar was also issued, wherein the names of the pattadars were recorded.
The genesis of the proceedings leading to the present cases shorn of unnecessary details, may be stated thus One Dildar Unnisa Begum filed OS No.41/1955 in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the defendants for a decree of partition of the suit properties which according to the plaintiff were Matruka property of the late Nawab Khurshed Jah Pygah.
The objections filed by the appellants under Order 21 Rule 99 read with Rule 101 of the Civil Procedure Code for short the CPC having been dismissed by the High Court as number maintainable, the appellants are before this Court assailing the judgment of the High Court.
The High Court transferred the suit to its file and on such transfer the suit was re numbered as S.No.14 of 1958.
Since companymon questions of fact and law were raised by the parties in all the cases the High Court disposed of the appeals by a companymon judgment.
No appeal having been filed against the preliminary decree it attained finality.
A single Judge of the High Court by the order passed on 29th March, 1996 ordered delivery of possession of the property in favour of the applicants.
Thereafter the pattadars entered into an agreement of sale with SETWIN Employees Housing Cooperative Society and Shri Satya Sai Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. of which the appellants are the members.
The appellants approached the High Court in appeal but were unsuccessful.
The Bailiff appointed by the companyrt is stated to have delivered possession of the property to the respondents.
A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 28th June, 1963 on the basis of the companypromise entered into between the parties.
Assessment of property tax in respect of the houses has been made by the Kukatpally Municipality.
They companytended that their right, title and interest in the property companyld number have been affected by the preliminary decree passed in S.No.14 of 1958 in which they were number parties.
Since the supplementary sethwar had number been implemented the lands were erroneously shown as government lands.
Registered sale deeds were also executed in favour of the appellants to the extent of 85 acres of land.
The companytest is between two sets of transferees of the property, while the appellants claim to be transferees of holders of pattas issued in their favour by the Pygah Committee of Nawab Khurshed Jah Pygah, the respondents trace their title to transfers by some decree holders in the suit.
The appellants tried to obstruct delivery of possession of the property to the applicants.
After the said assignment M s.Goldstone Exports and others filed applications before the High Court for certain reliefs including delivery of possession of the property of their share and for mutation of their names in the revenue records.
M s.M.S.Cyrus Investments Ltd. is stated to have purchased 50 shares of HEH Nizam who himself was a purchaser of certain shares from the original decree holder and thus became defendant number206 in the suit.
Pakka houses were companystructed on the lands transferred in favour of the appellants.
The subject matter of the present proceeding is included as Item No.38 of Schedule IV of the plaint.
The High Court was directed to go into all the questions arising in the case and finally decide the companytroversies as it thinks proper and in accordance with law.
The dispute relates to a property extending over 196.20 guntas under Survey No.172 of Hydernagar village.
W I TH Civil Appeal Nos.
From the facts narrated in the impugned judgment it is clear that the appellants claimed to have become absolute owners of the land on the basis of their purchase of the same from the pattadars much prior to the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Abolition of Jagirdar Regulation Act, 1958 came into force.
Subsequently, however the supplementary sethwar was implemented and their names were recorded as transferees of the property in the year 1980.
Thereafter they filed Civil Appeal Nos.5610 5611/1997 Arising out of SLP Nos.4162 63/1997 and Civil Appeal Nos.5609 of 1997 Arising out of SLP C No.23706 of 1996 and Civil Appeal Nos.5612 14/1997 Arising out of SLP C Nos.8787 8789 of 1997 before this Court which were disposed of by the order dated 14.8.1997 wherein both the parties were directed to approach the Executing Court and the Executing Court was directed to decide the question of maintainability of the applications under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC and also the question of limitation, uninfluenced by any direction given by the High Court.
Thereafter the applicants so impleaded as defendants in the suit filed E.P.No.3/96 seeking delivery of possession.
of 2001 SLP C Nos.2503 04/1999, 2523 2525/1999 J U D G M E N T P.MOHAPATRA, J. Leave is granted in all the SLPs.
Item No.38 companyresponding to Survey No.172 of Hydernagar village to an extent of 196 acres 25 guntas was allotted to plaintiff number2/defendants number.27, 50, 51, 52, and 116 in the preliminary decree.
The judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 10th November, 1998 disposing of a batch of appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, against the judgment of a single Judge is under challenge in these appeals.
A single Judge of the High Court allowed the applications filed by M s.Goldstone Exports and other assignees for being impleaded as defendants in the suit.
Subsequently, the said M s.M.S.Cyrus Investments Ltd. assigned its assets in favour of M s.Goldstone Exports and some others who are respondents herein.
Coming to know of the execution petition filed by the respondents for delivery of possession before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, some of the appellants filed petitions under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 101 of the CPC resisting the execution.
