This application is filed under Rule 18 of Order XX, read with Section 151 C.P.C., by the three petitioners, who are said to be assignees of defendant No.206 in C.S.NO.14 of 1958, in respect of 116 acres of land. They pray for a final decree in their favour in respect of the said land, which is part of item No. 37 of Schedule IV, annexed to the preliminary decree.

2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application in brief, are that, the suit was filed by one, Dildarunnisa Begum, for partition of Mathruka properties of Nawab Khurshid Jah, in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and later, it was withdrawn to this Court. The Jagir Administrator and State of Andhra Pradesh, that figured as defendant Nos.43 and 53 respectively, opposed the suit and ultimately, a preliminary decree was passed on 28-6-1963, determining the entitlement of the shares. According to them, 80% of the shareholders, including the plaintiff and several defendants sold away their undivided share, as per the preliminary decree through a registered document in favour of H.E.H. the Nizam, and his brother-in-law – Nawab Khasimnavaz Jung in the year 1965, and on an application made by the purchasers, they came to be impleaded as defendant Nos.151 and 157 on 20-8-1964. H.E.H. the Nizam, is said to have sold his rights under the document, and share in favour of M/s. F.E. Dilshaw Limited, a Company, through a sale deed dated 23-2-1967, and thereafter the Company was impleaded as defendant No.206, vide order dated 10-3-1969. The Company later on was reconstituted as M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited and the change was recognized by this court vide order dated 9-3-1979. The petitioners state that the Receiver/Commissioner appointed by this Court divided the suit schedule properly between various sharers and the shares that have jointly fallen to defendant Nos.156 and 206 were also divided into two equal shares, which included the lands in Hafeezpet and Hayathnagar Villages. The land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet, viz., item No.37 of Schedule IV of the decree, is one such item, allotted to defendant Nos.156, 157 and 206. After referring to certain other developments, it is stated that the Receiver/Commissioner has further divided the land between defendants 157 and 206, and the latter is said to have assigned its interest, right and title in favour of M/s. Goldstone Engineering Limited, on 29-11-1995, which in turn, was impleaded as defendant No.320, and it is from the said Company, that the petitioners claim rights.

3. Counter-affidavits are filed by respondent Nos.16, 19, 30 and 832. The respondent No.30, who incidentally, is defendant No.23 in the suit, stated that, ignoring the interests of the original parties to the suit, several third parties are claiming interest in the property on the basis of agreements of sale, assignment deeds, etc., leading to several complications. According to him, the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet, to an extent of Ac. 5.87 guntas was allotted to his father, who figured as respondent No.23. He stated that the so-called adjustment between the petitioners and any parties or others to the suit, is not binding on him.

4. Other respondents, who filed counter-affidavits, submit that the various steps, that have taken place at different stages of the suit are untenable in law. Reference is made to a direction issued by this Court on 30-1-1996, wherein the matter has been forwarded to the Collector, under Section 54 C.P.C., and it is urged that any steps, subsequent thereto, are untenable.

5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has also opposed the application by raising several contentions, touching on the validity of the decree itself.

6. On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at length, this Court felt that the following issues become relevant:

(1) Whether the preliminary decree, dated 28-6-1963, passed by this Court, suffered from any infirmity, particularly in th