Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant herein. He instituted Civil Suit O.S. No. 11 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court at Razole seeking partition of the plant A schedule immovable properties into 24 equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot 7 such shares to the plaintiff and to put him in separate possession there of after eviction of the defendants there from. He also prayed for partitioning the plaint B schedule movable properties into 24 equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot 7 such shares to the plaintiff and to direct the 1st defendant to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff, failing which a decree may be passed to recover from the 1st defendant the value of the properties covered by such share together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of presentation of the plaint till the date of its realization. The plaintiff also prayed to direct the 1st defendant to render accounts of income realized by him from the plaint A and B schedule properties for two years immediately preceding the presentation of the plaint.
(2.) A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 06.01.1997 in the following terms: "Item Nos. 1 and 3 to 9 of plaint A schedule property was ordered to be partitioned into 24 equal shares by metes and bounds and allotted 7 such shares each to the plaintiff, 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant. One such share each was allotted to the defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Delivery of possession of the respective shares was ordered after evicting the 1st defendant therefrom. Past profits for a period of two years prior to the filing of the suit and mesne profits from the date of suit till date of delivery of possession with respect to the share allotted to him, of the properties of plaint A schedule was also ordered. In all other respects, the suit claims were rejected." In pursuance of the preliminary decree, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 207 of 2000 for passing final decree. Final decree was passed on 13.07.2000. Thereafter, I.A. No. 13 of 2001 was moved for amendment of the final decree dated 13.07.2000 and the said I.A. was allowed on 03.04.2002 determining the profits from 22.04.21983 to 13.07.2000. I.A. No. 12 of 2001 was moved under Order 20 Rule 18 C.P.C. for appointment of an advocate -commissioner for partition of item Nos. 1 and 3 to 9 of the petition schedule properties into 24 equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotting 7 such shares to the petitioner/decree holder. Along with other related I.As, I.A. No. 12 of 2001 was allowed on 08.03.2010, determining as to how much of land each of the plaintiff/decree holder, the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant would get towards their 7/24th share respectively, in all the items 1 and 3 to 9 of the petition schedule and in view of the practical difficulty and the utility ordered their sale so that sale proceeds can be distributed to all the sharers.
(3.) THE plaintiff/decree holder carried the matter in appeal against the said order dated 08.03.2010 by preferring A.S. No. 28 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram. The learned II Additional District Judge by his order dated 30.07.2014 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the common order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta in I.A. No. 12 of 2001 and other related I.As in O.S. No. 11 of 1985. Calling in question, the correctness of the judgment rendered in A.S. No. 28 of 2010 by the learned II Additional District Judge and the common order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta in I.A. No. 12 of 2001 in O.S. No. 11 of 1985, the present second appeal is preferred.;