JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an assignee-decreeholders appeal preferred under Order 21, rule 103, C. P. C. (as amended) against an order made by the learned 5th Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyd. in e A No. 60/82 filed under Order 21, Rule 97, C P C. in E P No. 6/80 in 0 S No. 121/70. while allowing E A No. 60/82, the trial Judge considered it. a fit case in which a surveyor should be sent to demarcate S No. 148 and also S Nos. 150/1 and 2 after showing the boundaries by the surveyor of s No. 148 with the aid of the village plan of Shaikpet village, the possession of the schedule mentioned property in s No. 148 is to be given to the decree holders by removing any obstruction in it. I feel in the circumstances the petition is to be allowed, ordering the surveyor to demarcate S No. 150/1 and 2 and also S No. 148 and show the boundaries to the bailiff. "

( 2 ) THE main grievance of the assignee-decree-holders is that though E. A. No. 60/82 was allowed in their favour, the aforesaid directions given by the learned trail Judge have pernicious consequences if the identification of the property is to be made by the surveyor demarcating S. No. 148 from S. Nos. 150/1 and 2 and if the obstruction which they sought to remove is to be confined only to the S. No. 148 referred to above without reference to the real dispute between the parties, viz. , the physical identity of the property in dispute between the contesting parties.

( 3 ) TO collect the true facts which form the background for this litigation, we have to start from the proceedings which had their initial start in civil suit no. 7/58 on the original side of this court.

( 4 ) THE 1st appellant Sri Y. Subba rao is the original decree-holder in O. S. No. 121/70 which was originally filed as o. S. No. 6/66, Appellants 2 to 10 are the assignees of the decree from the 1st appellant on 18-2-81 and the assignment was recorded in E. A. No. 10/81 on 2-3-1981. The first appellant having died in February, 1983 this appeal is continued by the assignees decree-holders 2 to 10.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 6 are the judgment-debtors in 0 S No. 121/70 while the 7th respondent Smt. Radha KG reddy is the obstructor whose obstruction is sought to be removed in E A No. 60/82 filed by the decree-holders.

( 6 ) CIVIL Suit No. 7/58 was a suit pending on the original side of the High court of Andhra Pradesh. In that suit there was a compromise decree passed on 9-8-1963 in application Nos. 335/62 and 200/63. We are concerned with the latter application in which the parties prayed for allotment of Block numbers 9 and 10 of Akbar Bagh, Tolichowk of schedule F of the property which was the subject matter of that suit, along with one Mohd. Khanruddin Khan. The receiver cum - commissioner in that case had prepared valuation statements to enable the Court to make suitable allotments to the parties. On the basis of the said reports, allotment was made to the legal representatives of the 5th defendant as follows : "defendant Nos. 51 L. Rs. are allotted units 9 and 10 of the value of rs. 67,413/, their share being, Rs, 61, 381-08, with the result that they have to pay Rs. 6,031-92. They have to pay court-fee of Rs. 1,639. 22 besides and Rs 87. 69 towards other liabilities. So the total amount recoverable from them is rs. 8,548. 83. " we shall go into the details of the schedules allotted to the share of the 5th defendant at a later stage but at this stage it is sufficient to say that item 9 was shown to be property in Akbar Bagh, blocks I and 2 of house, situated at tolichowk in a total area of 12,856. 30 square yards composing of building with ground floor, first floor, open land and court-yard. Item 10 was also described as Akbar Bagh Block No. I and 2 of house at Tolichowk in an area of 13834. 72 square yards comprising of ground floor first floor and open area including court-yard. No survey numbers were mentioned in the schedule for items 9 and 10 and the municipal number was left blank. There is a p