IMPORTANT POINT
The decree remains valid despite the death of a party if not communicated, and execution petitions for restitution are maintainable under Section 144 of CPC.

ORDER

The above revision is filed against the order dated 15.09.2011 in E.P.No.65 of 2007 in O.S.No.3 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikottur.

2. a) One Mangali China Nagamma, being the plaintiff, filed suit O.S.No.3 of 1981 (old O.S.No.437 of 1974) on the file of District Munsif, Nandikottur against Mangali China Giddamma and K.Mallayya, for declaration and injunction and alternatively for possession in respect of land in S.No.269/2-B. The plaintiff also filed another suit O.S.No.30 of 1981 for injunction. The suit O.S.No. 3 of 1981 suit was decreed on 25.06.1983. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, M.C.Giddamma filed appeal A.S.No.76 of 1983 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was allowed by judgment and decree dated 12.09.1988, and the judgment and decree dated 25.06.1983 in O.S.No. 3 of 1981 was set aside, as a result, the suit was dismissed.

b) Pending the appeal, the plaintiff in the suit M.C.China Nagamma executed the decree in O.S.No.3 of 1981, as a result, the property was delivered to the plaintiff on 10.09.1983.

c) Against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.76 of 1983, the plaintiff filed S.A.No.610 of 1988. The second appeal was dismissed on contest by judgment and decree dated 09.09.1999, confirming the judgment and decree in A.S.No.76 of 1983.

d) The legal representatives of defendants 1 and 2 filed E.P.No.65 of 2007 in O.S.No.3 of 1981 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool to recognize them as legal representatives of plaintiff, to issue a notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC to respondents 2 to 9, who are legal representatives of 1st respondent (plaintiff), to order restitution of item Nos.1 to 4, 6 & 7 of schedule property to 3rd petitioner, legal representative of 1st plaintiff; Item No.5 to 4th petitioner, legal representative of 2nd defendant under Section 144 of CPC and to grant mesne profits from10.09.1983.

3. The 1st respondent in the E.P filed counter and opposed the petition. It was contended, interalia, that after the decree and judgment in A.S.No.76 of 1983, the defendants did not file any restitution application. They ought to have filed a petition in the suit seeking restitution. The respondents did not know of the legal proceedings that transpired between Giddamma and China Nagamma. Smt M.China Nagamma, appellant in S.A.No. 610 of 1988 died pending the second appeal on 13.11.1993. However, the second appeal was dismissed on 09.09.1999. Since China Nagamma died on 13.11.1993, the appeal was abated. The 3rd petitioner is aware of the death of China Nagamma and thus, the E.P is barred by limitation. In the E.P., the respondents 2 to 10 are legal representatives of deceased M.China Nagamma.

4. By order dated 15.09.2011, the E.P. was allowed. The executing Court held that the petitioners in E.P.No.65 of 2007 are entitled to restitution. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

5. Pending revision, Mangali Seshamma died, and her legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 8 to 13. Some of the legal representatives of Mangali Seshamma are shown as respondents 5 to 7.

6. Heard Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for 3rd respondent.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that pending the second appeal M.China Nagamma died on 13.11.1993 and hence, the appeal was abated. The judgment in the second appeal dated 09-09- 1999 is a nullity. He would also submit that E.P.No.65 of 2007 was filed in the year 2007 and hence, the same is barred by limitation. Learned counsel relied upon Vantaku Appalanaidu And Ors. Vs. Peddinti Demudamma and Anr, AIR 1982 AP 281 and Golla Krishna Murthy Vs. Golla Yellaiah (Died), 2001 (5) ALD 484.

8. Per contra, Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the appellant's death in the second appeal is unknown to the 1st respondent in the second appeal. The revision petition