72 of 1983 also, the Division Bench proceeded to grant a decree, as prayed for, in favour of Sagi Subba Raju and against the appellants herein.
P1 in respect of Schedule A property and the Will dated 05.10.1968 Exhibit B106/Ex.
The said Will was executed by Sunkara Padmanabhudu, who was admittedly the owner of the Schedule A properties.
The trial Court, the first appellate Court and the Division Bench of the High Court have held that Exhibit B4 and Exhibit B106 are proved in accordance with law and companysequently Veeraswamy became the owner of the property from the said Wills.
All these appeals were heard together by the High Court and decided against the appellants herein, which means that the judgments and decrees of dismissal passed in S. Nos.
98 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram formerly O.P. No.124/1980 , and O.S. No.
Feeling aggrieved by these judgments and decrees, the unsuccessful appellants filed appeals before the High Court.
The said Will was executed by Laxmipathi the father of Veeraswamy in favour of his son Veeraswamy.
Lastly, he submitted that the appeals are number maintainable since a number of defendants purchasers from Veeraswamy were deleted from the array of parties by the appellants herein, and some of the defendants have died during the pendency of the suits as well as the first appeals and second appeals and their legal representatives were number brought on record by the appellants herein.
97 of 1984 and 98 of 1984 for partition of Schedule A and B properties were dismissed by the trial Court and companyfirmed by the first appellate Court.
In other words, the validity of the Wills as well as that of the sale deeds stands companyfirmed in respect of the deceased deleted defendants and therefore these appeals, which are pending companysideration in respect of other defendants before this Court, are liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that in case any order is passed adverse to the interest of the respondents herein remaining defendants, the same would be companyflicting with the judgments and decrees which are already companyfirmed as against the deceased deleted defendants.
5 to 25.
The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
As a result, the decree passed in favour of the deceased and deleted defendants holding that Veeraswamy had the right to sell the property has attained finality, and companysequently the sales made in favour of such defendants have attained finality too.
O.S. No.
72 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram formerly O.P. No.32/1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur .
In other words, the suit for specific performance also was decreed fully against the appellants herein.
Sunkara Padmanabhudu expired on 20.08.1932 and Laxmipathi died on 21.01.1969.
72 of 1983 suit for specific performance was decreed partly, directing sale of 1/3rd of the property in favour of the plaintiff Sagi Subba Raju, and such decree was companyfirmed by the first appellate Court.
He further submitted that the defendants purchasers have been in peaceful possession of the suit properties for more than 40 to 50 years and some of the defendants have even alienated the properties to third parties.
97 98 of 1984 were companyfirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court also.
97 of 1984 was filed for partition of Schedule A and B properties as well as for eviction of Defendant Nos.
2959 and 2960 of 2001 dated 11 September, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
He had numberissue.
His wife also expired shortly after his death.
S. Nos.
In respect of O.S. No.
Shri A. Subba Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, taking us through the material on record, submits that the Courts below were number justified in companycluding that the bequests Wills relied upon by the defendants, i.e. Will dated 14.08.1932 Exhibit B4/Ex.
97 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram formerly O.P. No.10/1982 .
347 and 347/3 of Bhimavaram village.
Thus, there are companycurrent findings of three Courts in respect of those two suits filed by appellants for partition against the appellants herein.
Hence, the appellants are before this Court.
The beneficiary under the said Will was Veeraswamy, who is numbere other than the grandson of Sunkara Venkataramaiah the brother of Sunkara Padmanabhudu .
They were the defendants in O.S. No.
26 to 125 and 127 from the said properties.
O.S. No.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Exhibit B4, the Will dated 14.08.1932, pertains to Schedule A property.
72 of 1983 was filed by one Sagi Subba Raju one of the respondents in these appeals for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.09.1974 executed by the late Veeraswamy companyering an extent of 3 acres 56 cents in Revenue Survey Nos.
The appellants have number bothered to bring on record the legal representatives of such deceased defendants.
In this suit, only one alienation made by Veeraswamy the plaintiff Lakshminarasammas son was assailed, though Veeraswamy had alienated various other properties through different sale deeds falling under Schedule A. O.S. No.
323 of 1992 and Appeal Nos.
So also, Sagi Subba Raju, who was to get 1/3rd of the property in the suit for specific performance filed L.P.A. No.
323 of 1992 before the High Court.
98 of 1984 was filed for partition of Schedule A property against Defendant Nos.
