Telangana High Court

CRP/5798/2011 of Smt Seerapu Ramana Kumari Vs Betha Anasuyamma (Died) on 30 December 2011

MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5798 of 2011 DT.30.12.2011 Between: Seerapu Ramana Kumari … Petitioner And Betha Anasuyamma and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri V Venugopala Rao Counsel for respondents: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR

DT.30.12.2011

Between:Seerapu Ramana Kumari

AndBetha Anasuyamma and others

Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri V Venugopala RaoCounsel for respondents:

… Petitioner… Respondents

The Court made the following ORDER:

ORDER :-

This revision is filed questioning the order dated 29.11.2011 in E.P. No.118 of 2011 in O.S. No. 1076 of 1999 passed by the Principal Junior CivilJudge, Vijayawada, in allowing the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 11 (1)Schedule-1 of CPC to deliver the possession of plots.

The revision petitioner is second judgment debtor. Theplaintiffs/respondents 2 and 3 herein have filed a suit in O.S. No. 1076 of1999 for partition of plaint property into four equal shares and to allot onesuch share to each of them and to put them into separate possession and forcosts of the suit. The Court below on 21.12.2000 passed a preliminarydecree for partition of suit property into four shares and to allot one suchshare each to the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs filed a petitionunder Order 21 Rule 11 (1) Schedule 1 of CPC in E.P. No. 118 of 2011 todeliver the possession of plots marked as A & B along with passage asshown in the final decree plan. The Court below on consideration of thematter, allowed the said petition with a direction to depute the amin for thedelivery of the plots A and B of the schedule property to the decree holdersrespectively in terms of the final decree as required under Order 21 Rule 35of CPC by 6.1.2012. Questioning the said order, the present revision is filed.

The learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that there is nospecific decree for delivery of the possession and without considering thesaid fact, the Court below erred in allowing the petition directing delivery ofplots to decree holders. The said contention of the petitioner cannot beaccepted inasmuch as partition of the property into four shares and allot onesuch share each to the plaintiffs and defendants means to deliver the sharefallen to thedecree holders.

There are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the order underrevision. The revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

No costs.

DATE:30.12.2011

tvk

_____________V ESWARAIAH,J

DT.30.12.2011

Page 1 of 1

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead