B-1, which deals with the subject-matter of this appeal which is item (1) of A-1 Schedule. Meanwhile, there was an intercession by common friends and matters were adjusted, as the outcome of which Exs. As there were variations in the descriptions of the properties, time was taken by both the parties for giving correct descriptions and this matter was adjourned from time to time to enable them to furnish correct particulars.ģ. Thereupon, the executing Court vacated the previous order and after hearing the objections of the judgment-debtors-appellants, delivery of all itemsĮxcept item (1) of A-1 schedule was again ordered. Shortly, thereafter, the judgment-debtors appeared in Court and complained thatĭelivery was ordered without notice to them. 1/1954 the Court made an order directing delivery of the properties and in fact some of the properties were delivered, but not item (1) of A-1 schedule. Subsequently, the respondents applied for delivery of possession of item (i) of A-1 schedule, as well as other properties forming part of A and A-1 schedule, in E. The decree provided for taking out execution and obtaining possession through Court. In pursuance thereof, a Commissioner was appointed and further steps were taken, ultimately there was a compromise on 15-12-51 which formed the basis of the final decree, by and under which the properties set out in schedules A and A-1 were allotted to the plaintiffs-respondents and those comprised in B and B-1 schedules were allotted to the defendants.
On 21-8 1948 there was a preliminary decree passed by consent.
37/1946) for partition and separate possession of their shares in the joint family properties. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly narrated.Ģ. This is an appeal against the judgment of Justice Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, reversing that of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor.
0 kommentar(er)
