A preliminary decree in a partition suit passed without framing issues as mandated by Order XIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is inherently illegal and vitiated by a fatal procedural error, regardless of admissions made by the defendant.

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

This Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellants/third parties assailing the Preliminary Decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.S. No.210 of 2008 by the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against respondent No.2/defendant seeking partition and separate possession in respect of vast extent of land admeasuring Ac.138.39 guntas comprising of various survey numbers, was decreed in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff by granting a preliminary decree to an extent of 3/4th share and whereas remaining 1/4th share in favour of respondent No.2/defendant.

2. The appellants herein who are the third parties to the said suit vide O.S.No.210 of 2008, have preferred the present appeal to protect their interest in respect of the lands claimed by them i.e., Ac.10.07 guntas in Sy.No.186, Ac.15.03 guntas in Sy.No.238, Ac.4.02 guntas in Sy.No.239, Ac.3.27 guntas in Sy.No.241, Ac.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.242, Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.243 and Ac.2.15 guntas in Sy.No.248, situated at Kowkoor Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District total land admeasuring Ac.38.00 guntas, out of Ac.138.39 guntas.

3. This Court vide orders dated 04.04.2022, allowed the following applications in A.S.No.9 of 2022;

i) vide I.A.No.1 of 2022, granted leave to challenge the preliminary decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.210 of 2008,

ii) vide I.A.No.4 of 2022, condoned the delay of 3645 days in filing the appeal ;

iii) vide I.A.No.3 of 2022, granted interim suspension of preliminary decree dated 05.02.2009.

4. Heard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Enugala Pramod Reddy appearing for the respondents.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

5. The respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit vide O.S.No.210 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking partition and separate possession in respect of vast extent of agricultural lands total admeasuring Ac.138.39 guntas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the entire suit schedule property’) situated at Kowkoor Village, R.R. District comprising of various survey numbers and extents as detailed hereunder:

6. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is that he is one of the legal heirs of late Mohammed Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali s/o. Mohammed Hussain, who was the owner of the entire suit schedule property among other lands. The said late Mohammed Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali as pattadar of the land also filed declarations as required under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in respect of the properties held by him and a detailed order was passed in C.C.No.408/U/75, dated 21.07.1977 by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Late Mohammed Amjad Ali had two brothers by name, late Mohammed Masood Ali and Mohammed Taher Ali, who also died and tha