JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed under Section 100 C.P.C.

seeking to set aside the judgment dated 21.07.2017 of learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in A.S.No.94 of 2010, which in fact confirmed the order dated 19.01.2010 in E.A.No.213 of 1997 in E.P.No.64 of 1997 in O.S.No.180 of 1978 of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District.

2. To appreciate the contentions raised in this second appeal, a brief narration of certain undisputed facts and events is needed.

3. There was one Sri Pallaiah and he had two sons by name Sri Satyanarayana and Sri Ramanna. It seems that after the death of Sri Pallaiah, his two sons referred above got the properties partitioned between themselves. It is first relevant to notice certain facts concerning Sri Ramanna. This Sri Ramanna had two wives and had children through both of them and name of one of his sons is also Satyanarayana. Since already partition took place between Ramanna and his brother Satyanarayana, it is with reference to the properties that fell to the share of Sri Ramanna disputes arose on his demise. The second wife and daughter born to her through late Ramanna filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.180 of 1978 as against children of late Ramanna born through his first wife. That suit was tried by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. After a hot contest, the suit was decreed for partition. Aggrieved by it, the defendants in the said partition suit filed A.S.No.3169 of 1982 before this Court. This Court in its judgment dated 21.05.1982 allowed the appeal in part and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court for the rest. The suit for partition contained several items of properties listed in ‘A’ schedule. Out of them item Nos.1 and 2 were found by this Court as not belonging to Ramanna and therefore, item Nos.1 and 2 could not be the subject matter of partition among legal heirs of Ramanna. This Court recorded that item Nos.1 and 2 belonged to Ramanna’s brother late Satyanarayana. As against the judgment of this Court, the defendants in the suit moved LPA No.35 of 1990 and the same was dismissed on 15.02.1996 and as a consequence of it, the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.3169 of 1982 was confirmed. That decree became final. Subsequently, before the trial Court final decree proceedings took place and thereafter the winning plaintiffs, with a view to obtain possession of properties allotted to their share, filed E.P.No.64 of 1997 in O.S.No.180 of 1978. During those execution proceedings, on 22.03.1997 the executing Court delivered all those properties that fell to the plaintiffs/D.Hrs. and put them in possession. During the pendency of execution proceedings or at the time of effecting delivery of possession, no resistance came up from any third party.

4. It is subsequent to such delivery of possession, persons other than judgment debtors have initiated litigation before the executing Court. These persons are wife and children of late Satyanarayana, who is brother of late Ramanna. Altogether there are eight individuals. Seven of them filed E.A.No.213 of 1997 in E.P.No.64 of 1997 in O.S.No.180 of 1978 and the eighth one, since not readily available, was arrayed as respondent No.3. The said execution application as 213 of 1997 was filed under Order XXI Rules 99 and 101 C.P.C. wherein they sought to set aside the delivery proceedings to the extent of Ac.0.54 cents in item No.4 and Ac.1.00 cents in item No.6 of the E.P. schedule properties and sought for redelivery of these properties to them stating that they were dispossessed in the execution proceedings. In that claim petition, the claim made by these objectors is that after the death of late Pallaiah, his two sons got properties partitioned and in that partition certain properties fell to the share of Satyanarayana. They further pleaded that in the suit filed for partition for the estate of late Ramanna, the plaintiffs fraudulently included certain properties that fell to Satyan