The revision is continuation of age-old lis in O.S.No.15 of 1933 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Anantapur. E.P.No.59 of 2000 was laid by the alleged decree holders in E.P.No.15 of 1933. The dispute revolves round Kapadam families on the one side and Kamatam families on the other side. Kapadam families are residents of Gangulakunta village. Kamatam families reside in Yerrayapalli village. The dispute more or less is a dispute between Gangulakunta and Yerrayapalli villages. Lord Sangalappa is the common deity of the Kapadam sect of Gangulakunta and Kamatam sect of Yerrayapalli. Both the people belong to Koraba community, which is said to be a herding community in Anantapur District.

2. This revisionis loaded with questions of law such as question of limitation, maintainability of the revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC, for short) and the locus standi of the decree holders to lay the execution petition. It is, however, necessary to know the outlines of the case.

3. Gangulakunta and Yerrayapalli villages have their own temples. However, they have the custom of exchanging or rotating the paraphernalia periodically. The revision is laid by Kamatam sect of Yerrayapalli questioning the order in E.P.No.59 of 2000. Kapadam family of Gungulakunta laid the execution petition as the decree holders, arraying the Kamatam family as the judgment debtors. However, O.S.No.59 of 1933 was laid by the Kamatam family against Kapadam family. The parties shall be referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed in E.P.No.59 of 2000 as decree holders and judgment debtors.

4. As already pointed out, there is a very long legal background for this case. The judgment debtors initially laid O.S.No.486 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Anantapur. It was a suit for custody of pooja articles of insignificant value but of extraordinary sentimental and religious implications. The property in respect of which O.S.No.486 of 1927 was laid more or less is identical with the E.P. schedule property, such as bronze horses etc., including the idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy.

5. The decree holders resisted the suit. The suit ultimately was dismissed. An appeal in A.S.No.114 of 1928 was preferred before the District Judge, Anantapur. The appeal was also dismissed. In the appeal, the learned District Judge made an observation that a suit can be laid in the representative capacity under Section 92 CPC as a scheme suit. Subsequently, O.S.No.1 of 1931 was laid by the judgment debtors in the District Court, Anantapur. It was later transferred to the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur and was renumbered as O.S.No.15 of 1933. O.S.No.15 of 1933 was the suit laid in terms of the observations in A.S.No.114 of 1928 on the file of the District Court, Anantapur.

6. While the suit was pending before the Sub-Court, Anantapur, apparently wise counsel prevailed over the parties. The rival groups entered into a compromise. It was observed that the decree holders had been performing pooja till the date of compromise and had been meeting the expenditure for performing pooja. The decree ordained that the judgment debtors should pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards their half share of pooja expenditure.

7. The compromise further recorded that the decree holders and the judgment debtors should appoint two trustees each who should look after the performance of pooja and other activities and account to both sides. Clause 2 of the compromise envisaged that the idols of the God should be installed for six months at Yerrayapalli and for the remaining six months at Gangulakunta in a year. Apart from that each sect should lead the performance of poojas for three months at a time to be taken over by the other side for three months thereafter to be followed once again by the first side for

.another three months, so on and so forth.

8. Hopefully, the dispute had a quietus with the compromise decree. However, troubles erupted. According to the decree holders, Kamatam s