Partition and a declaration invalidating a sale agreement were sought. The court dismissed the appeal for non-joinder of necessary parties, including the deceased third respondent's legal heir, and confirmed the decree dismissing the suit. It left the merits of prior partition and the agreement unanswered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ÐÏࡱá>þÿ
ÌÎþÿÿÿÊËÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð¿.{bjbjqPqP 5Ö::rÍCÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤˜ ˜ ˜ FÞ 4 & Î-Î-Î-8./& í…†z/(¢/"Ä/Ä/Ä/Ä/Ä/Ä/l…n…n…n…n…n…n…$s‡hÛ‰d’… ¾3Ä/Ä/¾3¾3’… Ä/Ä/§…<�<�<�¾3j Ä/ Ä/l…<�¾3l…<�<�Âu`w (dÄ/n/°[>MôœÐÎ-(:âìaB…d½…0í….bú?Š ;ô?ŠL(d(dä?Š füÄ/Øœ0š<�61| ²1Ä/Ä/Ä/’…’…þ;^Ä/Ä/Ä/í…¾3¾3¾3¾3& & & ä "Ä& & & "& & & ÿÿÿÿHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY APPEAL SUIT No. 1841 OF 1993 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiffs in Original Suit No.178 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam district (for short, the 'trial Court') preferred this Appeal challenging the decree and judgment dated 17.09.1986, where under and whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs, for partition of the plaint schedule property into 4 equal shares and for allotment of one such equal share to them, after converting joint possession into separate possession, and put them into separate possession and for a declaration that sale agreement dated 15.08.1966 set-up by the defendants 1 to 3 is false, fabricated document and not valid thereby not binding on the plaintiffs, was dismissed. 2. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S. No.178 of 1984 before the trial Court will be adopted throughout this judgment. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into 4 equal shares and for allotment of one such equal share to them and for declaration that the sale agreement dated 15.08.1966 set-up by defendants 1 to 3 is false alleging that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of late Pydayya and Pydamma, 3rd plaintiff herein. Pillala Ramaiah was the original owner of the schedule property, who died leaving behind his children Appalaswamy (died) and Venkataswamy (D-1), Pedda Mallunaidu and Pydayya. Pydayya died leaving behind his wife Pydamma, 3rd plaintiff, Apparao and Appalaraju, plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein to succeed his estate; whereas Pedda Mallunaidu died leaving behind his children Peddodu (D-7) and Chinnodu (D-8) respectively; whereas, 1st defendant was blessed with Sriramulu, Appalanaidu and Appalaswamy, defendants 4 to 6 respectively; whereas, Appalaswamy died leaving behind his son Appalanaidu (D-3), who all constituted as members of the joint family own and possessed the schedule property jointly and they were sharing the produce from the schedule property, after death of Pillala Ramaiah. While so, 3rd plaintiff borrowed Rs.1,000/- from defendants 1 to 3, about 10 years ago, on condition to appropriate the produce in lieu of interest till the debt is discharged. The plaintiffs have been paying land revenue on their undivided share. Subsequently, the plaintiffs got issued a notice dated 16.05.1980, marked as Ex.A-1, to the defendants 1 to 3 demanding them to accept Rs.1,000/- and permit them to enjoy their share of produce but the defendants got issued a contentious reply setting up an agreement of sale dated 15.08.1966, marked as Ex.B-1, alleging that the 1st plaintiff executed the agreement of sale; by which date, 1st plaintiff was minor and not competent to execute the agreement of sale and that the agreement is forged and fabricated one. Even otherwise, it would not confer any right in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and do not bind the plaintiffs as there was no partition as alleged in the reply. However, the defendants denied the right of the plaintiffs in the property covered by the agreement of sale dated 15.08.1966 and also prior partition of the property and as such denied the right of the plaintiffs both in the property covered by the agreement of sale and in the schedule property. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a common written statement admitting the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants while denying their constitution of coparcenary Hindu undivided joint family, specifically contending that there was division of the property among 4 branches, about 4 years prior to death of the 3rd plaintiff’s husband, and thereafter there was no joint family in existence, by the date of filing the suit. It is further contended that the 1st plaintiff, as a member of joint family, executed an agreement of sale dated 15.08.1966 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 agreeing to sell Ac.1.06 cents of wet land for Rs.1,000/- and since the date of purchase, defendants 1 to 3 were in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying land revenue. The defendants denied the alleged borrowing of Rs.1,000/- by the 3rd plaintiff from them on condition to appropriate the produce from the property covered by the agreement towards interest. In the year 1967, the 3rd plaintiff asked the Village Officer to collect tax from the defendants 1 to 3 and about 3 years back, the plaintiffs sought mediation of Pillala Ammathalli, Village Headman and others for securing possession of the suit land but they were not successful. The 3rd plaintiff sold part of her husband’s share of land to one Doddi Ramappalanaidu of Bangarammapalem in the year 1970 and another part to Nakkella Bangarayya of Rayapuram Agraharam in the year 1975 and another part to 3rd defendant in the year 1970. Though the defendants paid total consideration of the land covered by the agreement of sale, could not obtain regular registered sale deed due to postponement by the 1st plaintiff on one pretext or the other, more particularly, due to his non availability in the village. The defendants specifically contended that since the date of agreement of sale, they were continuing in possession and enjoyment of the property and, if for any reason, the agreement is disbelieved, they perfected their title by adverse possession. Due to increase of land value in and around the Steel Plant at Visakhapatnam, the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs and, hence, they are not entitled to claim either the relief of partition or declaration that the agreement of sale dated 15.08.1966 is forged, fabricated and not valid and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Defendants 4 to 8 remained ex parte. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the prior partition pleaded by defendants 1 to 3 is true? 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration to set-aside the sale agreement dated 15.08.1966? 3) Whether the defendants 1 to 3 prescribed their title by adverse possession? 4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition, as prayed for? 5) To what relief? 7. During course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-8. 8. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, considering oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the Suit holding that the previous partition pleaded by the defendants is true and that the agreement of sale dated 15.08.1966 was executed by the 1st plaintiff in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 and thereby the plaintiffs are disentitled to claim any relief. 9. Being aggrieved, the unsuccessful plaintiffs therein preferred the present Appeal raising several contentions. The main contentions of the plaintiffs-appellants are: a) The observation of the trial Court that the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession is not based on any material and the same is liable to be set-aside as it is erroneous; b) Ex.B-1 was created by the defendants playing fraud against the plaintiffs and, even otherwise, the question of adverse possession does not arise; and c) The trial Court failed to consider the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the plaintiffs while considering the plea of the defendants and committed an error in dismissing the suit and, finally, prayed to allow the Appeal setting-aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. 10. During pendency of the Appeal, defendants-respondents 1 to 3 died on different dates and the plaintiffs-appellants filed petitions to recognize the defendants-respondents 4 to 6 as legal heirs of the 1st defendant-respondent and defendants-respondents 7 and 8 as legal heirs of 2nd defendant-respondent and to implead the 9th respondent as legal heir of 3rd defendant-respondent in the Appeal and to set-aside the abatement and condone the delay of 3,481 days and delay of 402 days in representing the other petitions. This Court ordered notices in delay condonation petition to bring the proposed legal heir of 3rd defendant-respondent alone on record and also to his counsel but the plaintiffs-appellants did not serve notice on the proposed legal heir of 3rd defendant-respondent i.e., 9th respondent as ordered by this Court, consequently this Court passed order rejecting A.S.M.P. No.2943 and 2944 of 2013 and, subsequently, since no proof of service is filed before this Court, the plaintiffs-appellants also did not take any steps to get the petition restored, dismissed both the A.S.M.P. Nos.2943 and 2944 of 2013. Therefore, the legal heirs of the defendants 1 and 2, though on record, are not recognized as their legal heirs and the legal heir of 3rd respondent was not brought on record till date. 11. During course of argument, Sri K. Purushotham, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants, would contend that the finding of the trial Court regarding execution of Ex.B-1, agreement of sale is not based on any material and the finding with regard to previous partition pleaded by the defendants is not supported by any logical and legal reasoning. Unless there is any substantive piece of evidence to establish the previous partition, the same cannot be believed and when once the previous partition pleaded by the defendants is disbelieved, the 1st plaintiff is incompetent to execute the agreement of sale agreeing to convey title in an extent of Ac.1.06 cents without the consent of the other members or the coparceners of the joint family; therefore, the document marked as Ex.B-1 is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, the finding of the trial Court regarding previous partition and genuineness of Ex.B-1 is erroneous. It is further contended that the finding of the trial Court regarding perfection of title by adverse possession is without any legal basis since the defendants 1 to 3 never claimed hostile title and continued thereafter for more than the statutory period of 12 years. In the absence of proof of claiming hostile title against the plaintiffs in the property covered by Ex.B-1 and their continuation over a statutory period of 12 years thereafter, the finding of the trial Court is unsustainable under law; that apart, when the defendants 1 to 3 claimed possession under the agreement of sale, they are not competent to set-up the plea of adverse possession since their possession is permissive. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court are erroneous and prayed to allow the Appeal setting-aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. 12. Though notices in the Appeal were served, none appeared for the defendants-respondents and no argument was advanced on their behalf. 13. Considering the contentions of learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration
are: 1. Whether a Suit for partition and Appeal thereon are maintainable without impleading all the legal heirs of defendants 1 to 3? 2. Whether the previous partition pleaded by defendants 1 to 3 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the agreement of sale dated 15.08.1966, marked as Ex.B-1, is true, valid and enforceable under law? 14. POINT No.1: Admittedly, the suit is filed for partition of the schedule property into 4 equal shares and for allotment of one such equal share to them. The suit was originally filed against defendants 1 to 8, who are the legal heirs of 3 branches and the plaintiffs being the children of 4th branch claimed both the reliefs of partition and declaration. Thus, the suit is for two reliefs; the primary relief is for partition. Undoubtedly, defendants 1 to 3 died during pendency of the Appeal and the plaintiffs-appellants filed Petitions to recognise the legal heirs of 1st and 2nd defendants-respondents, who are already on record as defendants-respondents 4 to 6 and defendants-respondents 7 and 8 and to bring the 9th respondent as legal heir of 3rd respondent in the Appeal and to set-aside the abatement order under Order XXII Rule 9 of C.P.C. along with Petitions to condone the delay of 402 days in representing the Petitions and the delay of 3,481 days in filing the Petition to set-aside the abatement order and thereupon this Court ordered notices to the defendants-respondents directing the plaintiffs-appellants and the respondents, who are already on record in this Appeal by registered post with acknowledgment due. The petitioners-appellants did not comply the directions of this Court and failed to file proof of service; this Court having no other option dismissed both the A.S.M.P. Nos.2943 and 2944 of 2013, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and rejected the petition filed under Order XXII Rule 9 of C.P.C. by a specific order. 15. In those miscellaneous Petitions, the petitioners-appellants though specifically disclosed the dates of deaths of respondents 1 to 3 even though the legal heirs of respondents 1 and 2 are on record as respondents 4 to 6 and 7 and 8, the legal heir of 3rd respondent was not on record and the petitioners-appellants filed petition to bring the legal heir of 3rd respondent as 9th respondent. Unfortunately, the petitioners-appellants did not prosecute the miscellaneous Petitions and, hence, those petitions are ended in dismissal. 16. When a suit is filed for both the reliefs of partition and declaration, all the persons interested in the property be impleaded as parties to the suit, more particularly, in a suit for partition in the absence of persons entitled to claim share in the property, the suit cannot be decided effectively. When a similar situation came up before this Court in Balireddy Appalanarasaiah (died) and others Vs. Balireddy Saddhu and others, this Court held that in a suit for partition all the persons who are entitled to claim right are to be impleaded otherwise the suit is liable to be dismissed. 17. When similar question came up before the Apex Court in Kanakarathanammal Vs. V.S. Loganatha Mudaliar, in Para 15 of the judgment, it was held as follows: "It is unfortunate that the appellant's claim has to be rejected on the ground that she failed to implead her two brothers to her suit, though on the merits we have found that the property claimed by her in her present suit belonged to her mother and she is one of the three heirs on whom the said property devolves by succession under Section 12 of the Act. That, in fact, is the conclusion which the Trial Court had reached and yet no action was taken by the appellant to bring the necessary parties on the record. It is true that under Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure no suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of the parties, but there can be no doubt that if the parties who are not joined are not only proper but also necessary parties to it, the infirmity in the suit is bound to be fatal. Even in such cases, the Court can under Order 1, Rule HYPERLINK "javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/ba/disp.asp','287150','1');" 10, Sub-rule 2 direct the necessary parties to be joined, but all this can and should be done at the stage of trial and that too without prejudice to the said parties plea of limitation. Once it is held that the appellant's two brothers are co-heirs with her in respect of the properties left intestate by their mother, the present suit filed by the appellant partakes of the character of a suit for partition and in such a suit clearly the appellant alone would not be entitled to claim any relief against the respondents. The estate can be represented only when all the three heirs are before the Court. If the appellant persisted in proceedings with the suit on the basis that she was exclusively entitled to the suit property, she took the risk and it is now too late to allow her to rectify the mistake. In Naba Umar Hazra v. Radhashyam Mahish HYPERLINK "javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/PR/0053/1931','1');" MANU/PR/0053/1931 the Privy Council had to deal with a similar situation. In the suit from which that appeal arose, the plaintiff had failed to implead co-mortgagors and persisted in not joining them despite the pleas taken by the defendants that the co-mortgagors were necessary parties and in the end, it was urged on his behalf that the said co-mortgagors should be allowed to be impleaded before the Privy Council. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on the provisions of Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code. In rejecting the said prayer, Sir George Lowndes who spoke for the Board observed that 'they are unable to hold that the said rule has any application to an appeal before the Board in a case where the defect has been brought to the notice of the party concerned from the very outset of the proceedings and he has had ample opportunity of remedying it in India". 18. Even in the earlier judgment of this Court in Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai Vs. Venkateswara Rao, it was held as follows: “When necessary party to the appeal was not impleaded in the appeal, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.” 19. Therefore, if necessary party is not impleaded in the suit, it has to be dismissed on that ground alone. In another judgment of this Court in Jahangirji and others Vs. K. Kumar, this Court laid down similar principle that defect of non joinder of necessary parties could not be cured by impleading them in Appeal and fatal to suit for partition. 20. In K. Bhaskar Rao Vs. K.A. Rama Rao, a learned judge of this Court while dealing with a suit for partition, where the defendants in the written statement raised the plea of non-joinder of the two sisters of the parties for which the plaintiff stated in his rejoinder that as they were already married and were given sufficient share in the form of cash and articles, they were not necessary parties, the plaintiff came up with an application to implead the sisters as parties in the first appeal, this Court rejected the request holding that the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties being fatal, the same cannot be cured by impleading them in the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties by the trial Court. The decisions reported in Naba Kumar Hazra and another Vs. Radhashyam Mahish and others, Chenthiperumal Pillai Chanthanamuthu Pillai Vs. D.M. Devasahayam and Loganatha Mudaliar2 were on the similar question of proposition that non-joinder of necessary party is a fatal defect and the suit for partition is liable to be dismissed even on that ground alone. 21. In another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Addepalli Venkata Laxmi Vs. Ayinampudi Narasimha Rao, this Court considered about the plea of nonjoinder of necessary parties for the first time in the appeal during argument but the same was not entertained. However, in the present case, defendants 1 to 3 died only during pendency of the appeal and question of raising a plea at the earliest point of time i.e., before framing issues, as required under Order I Rule 9 of C.P.C. does not arise but when a suit is filed for both the reliefs of partition and for declaration, in the absence of legal heirs, the Appeal is not maintainable since the rights of the legal heirs of deceased defendantsrespondents cannot be determined in their absence. 22. In fact, as seen from the pleadings in the plaint, defendants 4 to 6 and 7 and 8 being the children of 1st and 2nd defendants are also entitled to claim share in the property along with their fathers and after death of their fathers, they could succeed the estate of their fathers, 1st and 2nd defendants. If, for any reason, a preliminary decree for partition is passed in their absence certainly, it will affect the valuable rights of defendants 4 to 6 and 7 and 8 in the suit. That apart, the 3rd defendant also died during pendency of the Appeal as admitted by the petitioners-appellants in A.S.M.P. Nos.2943 and 2944 of 2013 and proposed to bring the 9th respondent as legal heir of 3rd respondent but failed. Even assuming for a moment that, respondents 4 to 6 and 7 and 8 were already on record and remained ex parte still the legal heir of the 3rd respondent has to be brought on record but failed to do so by the petitioners-appellants before this Court, in the absence of legal heir of 3rd respondent, the Appeal Suit cannot be decided. 23. In Dhanalakshmi and others Vs. P. Mohan and others, the Apex Court discussed about the necessity of impleading the purchasers of the property as necessary parties to a suit for partition and held that the purchaser of the property is a necessary party to the suit in whose absence the decree cannot be passed effectively. 24. In another decision of the Apex Court in The State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram, the Apex Court discussed about the scope of Order I Rule 9 of C.P.C. and held that when the parties to the appeal died during pendency of the appeal, their legal heirs have to be brought on record and in their absence, the Appeal is not maintainable. 25. According to Order I Rule 9 of C.P.C. no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties and the Court may, in every suit, deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. It follows, therefore, that if the Court can deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the appellants and the respondents other than the deceased respondent, it has to proceed with the appeal and decide it. It is only when it is not possible for the Court to deal with such matter, that it will have to refuse to proceed further with the appeal and therefore dismiss it. 26. Even according to the provisions of C.P.C., plea of non-joinder has to be raised at the earliest stage i.e., before framing of issues but, in the present case raising such plea before the trial Court does not arise since death of defendants 1 to 3 took place during pendency of the Appeal. Hence, by applying the principles laid down in catena of decisions referred supra, the present Appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties to this Appeal. Added to that, defendants 4 to 8 already remained ex parte before the trial Court but the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the benefit under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of C.P.C. before this Court for the reason that this
Court did not exempt the plaintiffs from substituting the legal representatives of the defendants who did not file written statement or remained ex parte before the trial Court. On the other hand, no exemption was obtained by the plaintiffs-appellants, from the trial Court, as required under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of C.P.C. and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sushil K. Chakravarty Vs. Tej Properties Private Limited. The decree claimed by the plaintiffs is one for partition and for declaration that Ex.B-1 is forged, fabricated and not valid. According to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the suit for partition cannot be proceeded with unless all the persons having interest or right in the property are impleaded as parties to the suit or appeal. 27. The plaintiffs also claimed a declaratory relief under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 to declare that Ex.B-1 is forged, fabricated and not valid. Admittedly, Ex.B-1 was obtained by defendants 1 to 3 allegedly from the 1st plaintiff. When a joint decree for declaration against defendants 1 to 3 is claimed, the relief cannot be granted without impleading the legal heirs of deceased 3rd defendant. Similar question came up before the Apex Court in Chakravarty11, wherein it was held as follows: “It is apparent that the trial Court was mindful of the factual position noticed above, and consciously allowed the suit to proceed further. When the suit was allowed to proceed further, without insisting on the impleadment of the legal representatives of S it was done on the Court’s satisfaction, that it was a fit case to exempt the plaintiff T from the necessity of impleading the legal representatives of the sole defendant S (represented by the appellants herein). This could only have been done on the satisfaction that the parameters postulated under Order 22 Rule 4(4) CPC, stood complied with. The fact that the aforesaid satisfaction was justified has already been affirmatively concluded hereinabove.” 28. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chakravarty11, absence of legal heirs of the defendants against whom a joint decree was claimed, suit cannot be decreed. 29. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court and this Court in the decisions referred supra, I find that the Appeal Suit is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties to the Appeal. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the defendants-respondents and against the plaintiffs-appellants. 30. POINT Nos.2 and 3: The plaintiffs claimed the relief of partition and declaration but the defendants set-up an agreement of sale, Ex.B-1 and previous partition; the trial Court believed the previous partition and execution of agreement of sale and made an observation that defendants 1 to 3 perfected their title by adverse possession. In fact, in the grounds of appeal, the plaintiffs-appellants except questioning the observations of the trial Court about perfection of the title by defendants 1 to 3 by adverse possession, no ground was raised questioning the finding about the previous partition under 1st issue. 31. According to Order XLI Rule 2 of C.P.C., The appellant shall not, except by leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal; but the Appellate Court, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objection set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Court under this rule pprovided that the Court shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground. 32. Therefore, it is clear from the interdict contained under Rule 2 Order XLI of C.P.C., the plaintiffs-appellants are not entitled to raise any ground which they did not set forth in the memorandum of appeal except with the leave of the Court but no leave was obtained, however, during argument, it is contended that the finding of the trial Court on 1st issue is not correct. A ground not raised in the memorandum may be permitted to be urged in the Courts discretion only when it does not prejudice the opposite party, therefore, the permission is required to raise any ground other than the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal but no such permission was obtained; that apart, to raise any ground other than the ground set forth in the memorandum of appeal, defendants 4 to 8 remained ex parte before the trial Court and the suit was contested only by defendants 1 to 3, who died during pendency of this Appeal, if any other ground is urged before this Court other than the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal certainly, it would cause prejudice to the respondents 4 to 8, who are already on record. 33. Viewed from any angle, no permission was obtained by the plaintiffs-appellants to raise any ground and such permission, if any, is granted by this Court, it would cause prejudice to defendants 4 to 8, who are already on record and remained ex parte before the trial Court. Therefore, this Court need not interfere with the finding on 1st issue regarding previous partition set up by defendants 1 to 3 before the trial court. 34. According to Order XX Rule 5 of C.P.C. it is the duty of the Court is to record finding on each and every issue but, if a finding on one issue is sufficient for decision in any Suit or Appeal, the Court need not record separate finding on the other issues. Hence, in view of the same, detailed and elaborate discussion on points 2 and 3 is avoided in this Appeal. Hence, these issues are not answered. 35. In view of my foregoing discussion and finding on point No.1, The appeal suit is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment dated 17.09.1986, passed in Original Suit No.178 of 1984 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Anakapalle. In consequence, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ M.
SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 01-06-2015. Dsh HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 126 02062015 APPEAL SUIT No. 1841 OF 1993 Date. 01-06-2015 DSH 2004 (5) ALD 308 1964 (6) SCR 1 AIR 1994 AP 90 2012 (2) ALD 406 2010 (5) ALD 339 AIR 1931 PC 229 1956 TC 181 (FB) AIR 1994 AP 72 AIR 2007 SC 1062 AIR 1962 (2) SC 89 (2013) 9 SCC 642 PAGE PAGE 16 MSM, J A.S. No.1841/1993 -=>AHIJRSTVpq†‰¡®ÁËÍÚãåôû C E G H J K M O üøüëÞëÑëÑĺ°º “ “ † “†“† † v f “†“† “ h”+”hJ4’5OJQJ]^Jh”+”h‹^5OJQJ]^Jh”+”5OJQJ]^Jhž7¡5OJQJ]^Jh”+”h”+”5OJQJ]^JhiPŒOJQJ^Jh˜(OJQ ./ úïíèÙͶ¡œ‹„dð„gd:fqgd;Ê„dð„gd;ÊgdŽpo„dð„gdŽpo„„gd iŽ„dð„gd”+” $dàa$gd”+”$„ЄÐa$gd”+”$„Ðdà`„Ða$gd”+”dh $dàa$gdRågd\²zêz-{ýýýO _ † ˆ ž ¥ õ ü ý þ 8 9 h j ^_fgjmv·»ÈÉÝîõ9?EMèô óãÖãÖÉÖ¼¯¼Ö¯Ö¼Ö¢ã¢ã¢ã•ã•ã‘Š†Š†‚†††zrzn~hŽpohChCH*hCh”ÞhÚDh
iŽh”+”h”+”h”+”h”5¢5OJQJ]^Jh”+”5OJQJ]^JhC5OJQJ]^JhÚD5OJQJ]^JhJ4’5OJQJ]^Jhž7¡5OJQJ]^Jh”+”h”+”5OJQJ]^Jh 3Ã5OJQJ]^J+ ! Y Z ’ – Ã Ç Í Ð ø ú 07CÂÄ!#-/:<qs…†ïù(7;L_ksu‰ŒžŸ£©°²€‚ƒÎÕABDEHJZs‡‹õý
üøôøüøðøðøèøðøäÜäØäØäÔäÜäÔäÔäØäØäÐÌäÌÄÌÐÌÀ̼ÌÄ̸¼¸Ì¼Ì¼Ì¼Ì¼Ì´°´¼´Ì°ÌøÌh8h h§Túh¨P–hóÕh:fqh:fqHh:fqhÆ%Gh;ÊhPÖh1Æh1ÆH*h1Æh iŽh iŽH*hËqhˆ_h iŽh¯XE ÍÎ EFHIRSU^b“”µ¶ÚÜæçè4Sr†«¬çï EñíÝÐÃжЩ˜©‹©‹~¶~Ã~Ð~m~©~©~¶~©~¶~©~~hD+5OJQJ]^J!h»wßh»wß5HOJQJ]^Jh»wß5OJQJ]^JhÚ^|5OJQJ]^J!ha ñha ñ5HOJQJ]^Jha ñ5OJQJ]^JhóÕ5OJQJ]^JhŽpo5OJQJ]^Jh 5OJQJ]^Jh”+”h 5OJQJ]^Jh:fqh»{h:fq5OJQJ^J% ¶· 45^_®ó`¯÷ Æ Ç ?"@"ê"ôìôäôäôÜôÉÉÉÉɹô±ô±ô$a$gd[4$„Ò„Ð]„Ò^„Ða$gdkî$„Ò„Ðdà]„Ò^„Ða$gdD+$a$gd¬AÆ$a$gdD+$a$gd»wß $dàa$gd”+”EMOZbcØÙÚàâGHqs~€ˆçé.\uÂÄßãê<=ˆŠóâóÕóÕÈóÕ·ÕªÕóÕªŒªrarrTŒhŽpo5OJQJ]^J!h>tMh>tM5HOJQJ]^Jh>tM5OJQJ]^ 5OJQJ]^J!h»wßh»wß5HOJQJ]^Jh•h5OJQJ]^Jh»wß5OJQJ]^J!h“/‘h“/‘5H*OJQJ]^Jh“/‘5OJQJ]^J ŠÃÄÌÐ'H… Ž˜™¶RYdghnou34SUV[^_áé‚‹Œæç
óæóÙóÌó¿óÌ¿ÌóÌó̲̲Ìó¥ó”ƒ”óvóÌóiÌó\óhL'ð5OJQJ]^Jh¸rÇ5OJQJ]^Jh¬AÆ5OJQJ]^J!h¬AÆh¬AÆ56OJQJ]^J!h¬AÆhD+56OJQJ]^Jh»wß5OJ C a m n t u v Š š › œ ª ® » ¼ Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È ×
***!0!>!óæÙæ̼¯¼¯¢¼•¼¢¼¢¼¯¼¯¢¼ˆxÙ¼j\QhnF5OJQJ^Jh”+”h[45OJQJ^Jh”+”h”+”5OJQJ^Jh”+”h[45OJQJ]^Jh”+”5OJQJ]^JhœpÃ5OJQJ]^ "">"?"@"A"n"o"p"x"Ž"•"Î"×"Ø"Ù"â"ã"è"é"ê"í"ñ"¦#§#¨#«#ê#ô#**
$ôéÞéÞÎÞéÞéõªœéœ‘œƒœ‘é‘œéœéÃxœéxœxmbmhCw5OJQJ^Jhz3j5OJQJ^Jho>Š5OJQJ^Jh”+”h,y5OJQJ^Jh²GW5OJQJ^Jh”+”h”+”5O „Ò^„Ða$gd°C½$a$gdêM´$a$gdŸr $dàa$gdŸr$„Ò„Ð]„Ò^„Ða$gdk-$„Ò„Ðdà]„Ò^„Ða$gdo>Š$„,„Ðdà]„,^„Ða$gdo>Š $$;$<$@$C$D$N$T$g$$‘$û$ü$ÿ$%% %%%%]%^%_%`%d%k%{%%Ë%Ö%ø%&-&/&0&:&I&T& {&}&~&ˆ&¦&ôéÞÓÅÞÅ·Åé¬é¡é¡é¡éôéÅ–
**·‹Åéôé€é€épé€é€épé€éhz3jhz3j5HOJQJ^JhGNt5OJQJ^JhŸr5OJQJ^Jh”+”5OJQJ^Jh¸rÇ5OJQJ^JhCw5OJQJ^Jh”+”hû_œ5OJQJ^Jh”+”h” (C(L([(](s(ôäôÙξÎÙÎôÎôγΨΒγ‡w‡³¨Î‡ÎôγÎô¨g¨hÈàhÈà5H*OJQJ^Jh¶,h¶,5H*OJQJ^Jh¶,5OJQJ^Jhv+Š5OJQJ^Jh@w ´5OJQJ^JhÈà5OJQJ^Jh]^˜5OJQJ^Jhz3jhz3j5H*OJQJ^Jhz3j5OJQJ^JhGNt5OJQJ^Jh)<²h)<²5HOJQJ^Jh)<²5OJQJ^J%s(x(y(z(|(} (›( (ò()V)[)u))š)®)¯)°)Å)&+,28OQ*‚ƒˆ*£·äå+ðåÚÊÚ¿´¿´¿©¿ž“Ú©Ú©“ˆ ´“´“x“¿mbWbWbhÅ5Ù5OJQJ^Jhv+Š5OJQJ^JhŸr5OJQJ^JhµHÛhµHÛ5HOJQJ^Jh³Y5OJQJ^JhµHÛ5OJQJ^JhØ]R5OJQJ^Jh]^˜5OJQJ^J <²5OJQJ^Jhz3j5OJQJ^Jh¶,h¶,5HOJQJ^Jh¶,5OJQJ^JhÈà5OJQJ^JhÈàhÈà56OJQJ^J!++²+¹+å+æ+ç+î+÷+û+<,=,>,B,F,§,¨,®,°,Õ,Ø,--LM-]-r-÷-...0.<.=.™.¤./#/)/-/I/J/K/N/ôéÞéÞéÞéÞéÓéȽéÈéé¢é—**
éŒéŒéŒé½ééŒévékékékh£5OJQJ^Jh®X°5OJQJ^Jhv+Š5OJQJ^Jh”dO5OJQJ^Jh@w ´5OJQJ^Jhå1Ù5OJQJ^JhŸrhŸr5HOJQJ^Jh]^˜5OJQJ^Jh(™5OJQJ^JhôT5OJQJ^Jhà@½5OJQJ^JhŸr5OJQJ^JhÑ 5OJQJ^JN/M0W0d0f0x0|0
**´0¹0õ0‡1›1©1Ì1×1N2Y2·2¸2¹2Å2Ê2Ü2ã283934$4&434<44£4À4Ë4ê4ë4<5>56666,6ôéôéôéôéôÞôÓôÈôÈô¸ôÈÈôŸÈ”‰””y”nh ;- 5OJQJ^Jh°C½h°C½5HOJQJ^Jh5OJQJ^JhH5OJQJ^Jh°C½h°C½>OJQJ^Jh°C½5OJQJ^JhêM´hêM´5CJOJQJ^JhêM ´5OJQJ^Jh@w´5OJQJ^Jh$fñ5OJQJ^Jh®X°5OJQJ^JhŸr5OJQJ^J+44::;:S<�T<�ª>«>J?6J9J:J³J´JóäØäØäÌÁ®¢–†y $ ÆÐ’a$gdã5È$ ÆÐ’dàa$gdã5È$„]„a$gd¹~$„]„a$gdŸOõ$„Ò„Ðdh]„Ò^„Ða$gdã5È $dàa$gdã5È$„]„a$gdÄ$„]„a$gd:"$„dà]„a$gd°C½$„Ò]„Òa$gd°C½*
,666W6Y6_6a6b6m6x6”6—6¢6¹6Ä6Ü6è6ê6ì6÷6 77 77W7[7x7‚77Ò7ë7ô788E8P8t88·8¾8ï8969V9Œ9•9™9°9Ý9â9æ9:::V:ôéÙéÙéÎôéôÎôÎôéô¾ôéÙéôé³éôéôéôéô¨Î¨¨¨¨Î¨’¨¨¨‡¨³¨h@w ´5OJQJ^JhCw5OJQJ^Jh5OJQJ^Jh:"5OJQJ^JhDS5OJQJ^JhK}«hK}«5HOJQJ^Jh ;- 5OJQJ^Jh°C½h°C½5HOJQJ^Jh°C½5OJQJ^JhK}«5OJQJ^J5V:_:e::˜:™:±:¼:ã:ï:;;;&;';;;=;>;H;c;z;œ; ;¥;§;¨;²;·;¹;Ù;ï;<�<�!<�"<�, <�/<�:<�><�m<�q<�t<�v<�…
<�î<�ï<�===]=¼=>>«>ôéôéôéôéôéÞôéÞéÎéôéôéÃéÎéôéÎéôéôéôéÞé¸éÞéÞôô¸Ÿ"jhÄ0J6OJQJU^JhÄhÄ6OJQJ^JhÄ5OJQJ^Jh@w ´5OJQJ^JhCw5OJQJ^Jh:"h:"5H*OJQJ^Jh ;-5OJQJ^Jh:"5OJQJ^JhŸOõ5OJQJ^J5«>å>æ>ú>û>??0?1?J? sAuAÇBÈBCCCCCFHFcFdFÇFÈFÙFÚF¼H¾H6J7J8J9JóïåÞåÎïÊﻯ»œ»œŠœ»{»œ»œŠœ»¯»peUhŸOõh°C½5CJOJQJ^Jh°C½5OJQ ´J4K5K6K:KDKÈKêKôéÞлޢޗ
Þ‡zmé_TFhžULhžUL6OJQJ^JhžUL5OJQJ^JhžULhžUL5OJQJ^JhžUL5CJOJQJ^Jhã5È5CJOJQJ^Jhã5Èhã5È5CJOJQJ^JhµHÛ5OJQJ^ ´J5K6K–L—LQQ÷SøSXXYaY®Z°Z\]3cççØ̽µªµª¢ª¢ª–ª‹ $dàa$gd¹~$ Æsa$gd»[˜$a$gd‰#R $dàa$gd”+”$a$gdmè$ ÆÐdàa$gdžUL$ ÆÐa$gd*dÅ$„dà]„a$gd‹eá$ ÆÐ’„Ò„Ðdh]„Ò^„Ða$gdã5ÈêKëK*L+LCLMLsL—L›LžL¾L¿LMMMM*NN‹N˜NÏNÐNµOòOóOõO5P6P;PEPMPëàÕàÊàʿʱœÊ‘ʆÊ{Ê{ÊÕʱœÊ±œÊm_hmèhmè6OJQJ^Jhmèh*dÅ6OJQJ^Jhxs5OJQJ^JhŸOõ5 ´5OJQJ^J(jh*dÅh*dÅ0J6OJQJU^Jh*dÅh*dÅ6OJQJ^Jh‹eá5OJQJ^Jh*dÅ5OJQJ^JhG[5OJQJ^JhžUL5OJQJ^J(jhžULhžUL0J6OJQJU^JMP ´©žØ{ØkØØžØÍØžØUØh2É5OJQJ^JhDS5OJQJ^Jh2Éhmè56OJQJ^J(jhmèhmè0J6OJQJU^Jhmèhmè6OJQJ^JhÚ?– 5OJQJ^JhµHÛ5OJQJ^JhmèhžUL5OJQJ^JhczÍ5OJQJ^JhG[5OJQJ^Jhmè5OJQJ^Jhmè6HOJQJ^Jhmèhmè6HOJQJ^JdTfTlTnTëTñTUU 5OJQJ^JhpLP5OJQJ^Jh2É5OJQJ^Jhmè5OJQJ^Jhmèhmè5HOJQJ^J)TWVWWWaW™W¤WäWæW÷WXXXXXXNXOXY YaYeYpYyYŽY¯Y°YäYåYZ Z‹ZŒZ°Z´ZÇZÈZðåÚåÚÏ¿ÏÚÏ ´Ï©Ï›†Ï{Ï{ÏpÏ›†ÏeZ{ZÚZ{Zeh»[˜5OJQJ^JhDS5OJQJ^JhG[5OJQJ^Jhjm5OJQJ^J(jh‰#Rh‰#R0J6OJQJU^Jh‰#Rh‰#R6OJQJ^Jh®#g5OJQ _Š_ç_ôéôéÞÓÈÓ¸ÓÓ¢Ó’Ó¢Ó¢Ó¢Ó’Ó‡Ó|Ó‡Ól\lÓhÐÉhÐÉ56OJQJ^JhÐÉh¹56OJQJ^JhÕ8? 5OJQJ^JhýÊ5OJQJ^Jh„'Lh¹56OJQJ^Jh„'L5OJQJ^Jhþ½5OJQJ^Jhþ½h¹56OJQJ^JhÐÉ5OJQJ^Jh¹5OJQJ^Jhj*m5OJQJ^Jh‰#R5OJQ Þ|Þ|Þqfq|ÞéhczÍ5OJQJ^JhG[5OJQJ^JhP °5OJQJ^J(jhôÆhôÆ0J6OJQJU^JhôÆhôÆ6OJQJ^JhôÆhôÆ5OJQJ^JhýÊhÐÉ56OJQJ^JhôÆ5OJQJ^JhýÊ5OJQJ^JhÐÉ5OJQJ^Jh¹5O jyl¶nsÊtavbv÷èØÅź²º£££”…y$„]„a$gdØ6c$„dà]„a$gdÕ8?$„dà„a$gdÕ8?$„dà„a$gd,1…$a$gdôÆ $dàa$gd¹$„Ò„Ðdh] „Ò^„Ða$gdôÆ$„Ò„Ð]„Ò^„Ða$gdôÆ$„dà]„a$gdôÆ$a$gdÐÉ3c4c8cc–
**cddrdsdÁdÃdódeeeee0e1e2f3f4fŒffŽfÞfßfôêÝÓÝÅÝ»ÝÅÝ®ž®®sdTEdTEdEh–BfhôÆCJOJQJ^Jh–BfhôÆ6CJOJQJ^Jh– BfhôÆCJOJQJ^JhôÆCJOJQJ^JhôÆhôÆ6OJQJ^J!hôÆhôÆ56HOJQJ^JhôÆhôÆ56OJQJ^JhôÆhôÆOJQJ^JhEj«OJQJ^JhôÆhÐÉH °OJQJ^JhôÆhÐÉOJQJ^JhQG“OJQJ^JhÐÉ5OJQJ^Jßfáfûgügýghh/h3h>h@h¬hh®h²h iii•i jjjjïàÔÅ·¢—‰y¢n¢c¢S¢— ¢LB;hôÆ5>hJsfhôÆ5>h,1…h,1…hôÆhôÆ56OJQJ^Jh)%
**5OJQJ^JhÐÉ5OJQJ^JhEj«hEj«6HOJQJ^JhEj«hEj«6OJQJ^JhEj«5OJQJ^JhôÆ5OJQJ^JhQG“OJQJ^JhQG“hQG“5OJQJ^Jh– BfhEj«CJOJQJ^JhôÆCJOJQJ^Jh–BfhôÆCJOJQJ^Jh–BfhôÆ6CJOJQJ^Jjjjj!j– j›j®j¯jäjñjûjkk›kllnlplxlyl}ll”lšl¤l¦lömøm¶nºnãnînónoooooo)obokopppp1p3p’pšpŸpöïåàÜØÜØÜÔÜÔÜÔÜØÜÌÜÈÔÁÔÁØÁ°¢ÈÔÈžšÈÔØ– ØÈ’ÈØÈØŠØÈž†‚’hwhb!hEj«hEj«Hh¯+ÕhA(;hczÍhG[hq/ñPJmH @nH @sH @tH @ hq/ñhq/ñPJmH @nH @sH @tH @hq/ñhôÆhq/ñhôÆhôÆHh,1…hEj«hôÆ hôÆ5h‡|hôÆ5>hôÆ5>hJsfhôÆ5>3Ÿp¤ppÌpÐpqq[q\qgqhq–q— qq¸q¹qÕq×qØqÝqrr)rrLrUršr£r¿rÀrÉrÊrýrþrss sDsos–s— sžsŸs s£s«sºsçsésísîsttttttotqtÉtÊtÍtÎtvüøüôüðüøüøüðìðèðàØàðôðÔðÔðÔðÔðÔðÔðÔÐðÔðÔðÔðÔðÔðÔðèðÔðàØàðÈðĺ°¦hôÆOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^Jhq/ñhîUhîUHhÕ8?h¨AŒh¨AŒh¨AŒ6h¨AŒhîU6hÕ<êhý=lhîUh¯+Õhwhb!?vv:v?
v_vvfvçvèvévw@wBwCwEwFwHwewhwxw€w’wwŸw w¡w²w³wöìâöØâöÍ¿±¦˜¦˜±¦±¦±˜ˆ{ˆmSFhÄX±5OJQJ^J_Hÿhº5OJQJ^J_Hÿhmb5OJQ OJQJ^JhØ6cOJQJ^JhôÆOJQJ^Jh±8UOJQJ^Jbvçvèv w¡wxx´xyeywy{y|y©yªyðèÝÕʶ©¡ŸŸ—‹†gd³({$„ЄÐa$gdXs½$a$gd–;‡$a$gd É Æк dðgd É„dð]„gdZ$a$gd}fõ $dàa$gdº$a$gdmb $dàa$gd±8U$a$gd±8U$„dà] „a$gdÕ8?³wÀwÉwàwáwãwéwöwxxxXxyeyiyjykymynyoypytyuywy{y|y}yy©yªy®yòåòØòåòåòÈÄÀ´ª – Œª‚xª‚ªlhd\ÄOh˜(5OJQJ\^Jh³({hîYoh›h–;‡h˜(CJOJQJ^Jh“,eOJQJ^Jhx²OJQJ^JhG[OJQJ^Jhë%–OJQJ^JhŠ%ôOJQJ^Jh˜(OJQJ^Jh ÉCJOJQJ^Jh Éh˜(hÌLbh}fõ5OJQJ^J_Hÿhmb5OJQJ^J_HÿhÄX±5OJQJ^J_Hÿhº5OJQJ^J_Hÿªy«y¬y²y³y ´yµy¶y·y¸y¹yºy»y¼y½y¾y¿yùó󑌌ŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒ$a$akd$$If–lÖ”„Öhì„Ö0ÿÿÿÿÿÿö6ÖÿÖÿÖÿÖÿ4Ö4Ö laöÔ$If Æ®y±y²y³yÔyÖy×yØyÙyÚyÛyÜyÞyæyçyèyéyêyúyûyþyzzzz
**zzóæÞæÚÖÒÎÊƾ±¤¾ Æ“†ylyl_QChG[5>*OJQJ]^Jh³({5>*OJQJ]^Jhº5>OJQJ^JhE5>*OJQJ^Jh“,e5>OJQJ^Jhx²5>OJQJ^JhîYo5>O J[hmbhx²hh}fõhEhtaßh˜(CJaJh˜(5OJQJ\^Jh¬P5OJQJ\^J¿yÀyÂyÃyÄyÅyÆyÇyÈyÉyÊyËyÌyÍyÎyÐyÑyÒyÔyÕyÖy×yØyÙyÚyÛyÜyÝyúúúúú ƪ Æ>
**$a$ÝyÞyçyèyéyêyzzzz0zAzRzezxzŠzz®zÁzÖzézêzìzízïzðzòzúõúúúííëéççççççççççâààààààgdôÆ$a$gdEgd¬P$a$zzzzzzzzz/z0z1zAzB hÄhÈFsOJQJ^JmH sH hÄhÈFsOJQJ^J%jhÄhÈFs0JOJQJU^J h˜(CJh˜(5>OJQJ]^Jh“,e5>OJQJ]^Jhx²5>OJQJ]^Jh%Xþ5>OJQJ]^JxzyzŠz‹zzžz®z¯zÁzÂzÖz×zézêzëzízîzðzñzózôzöz÷zýzþzÿz{{ìßìßÌ¿¬ hÈFs0JjhÈFs0JUjhŽSxUhŽSxhô ahÈFsOJQJ^J%jhô ahÈFs0JOJQJU^Jh‰#RhÈFsOJQJ^J%jh‰#RhÈFs0JOJQJU^JhmèhÈFsOJQJ^J%jhmèhÈFs0JOJQJU^JhdÅhÈFsOJQJ^J%jhdÅhÈFs {,{-{.{ýýýôòýôææááááýýß$a$$„üÿ„&#$a$„üÿ„&#${{ {{ {{{{,{-{.{ïãïÒïãƾ¸ h˜(CJhŽSxhÈFshÈFsCJOJQJ^J!h¬P0JOJQJ^JmHnHuhÈFs0JOJQJ^JjhÈFs0JOJQJU^J 3 0&P1h°Ò/ °ÃN!°p"°p#p$p%°°Ð°ÐÄ‹$$If– Ô!vh5Ö„#v„:V–l”„Ö0ÿÿÿÿÿÿö6ö5Ö„/ÖÿaöÔ† œ@@ñÿ@NormalCJ_HaJmH @sH @tH @J@J Heading 1$$@&a$5CJOJQJL@L Heading 2$$@&a$5>OJQJ\b@b Heading 3$¤ð¤<�@&&5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH tH DA@òÿ¡DDefault Paragraph FontVi@óÿ³VTable Normal :Vö4Ö4Ö laö(kôÿÁ(No List>@ò> Footnote TextCJaJ@&@¢@Footnote ReferenceH4@4Header Æ9r .)@¢!.Page Number@B@2@ Body Text$a$5OJQJB>@BBTitle$dàa$5OJQJ^J4 @R4Footer ÆàÀ!JP@bJBody Text 2$dàa$OJQJ^JRQ@rRBody Text 3$„dà] „a$OJQJ^J\T@‚\ Block Text$„Ò„Ðdh]„Ò^„Ða$CJOJQJ^J6U@¢‘6 Hyperlink>BphÌFV@¢¡FFollowedHyperlink>Bph€€hC@²hBody Text Indent$„Ðdà„Ða$OJQJ^JmH sH tH ^^@Â^Normal (Web)¤d¤d[$\$OJPJQJ^JmH sH tH \þOÒ\fiction„d¤d¤d[$\$„dOJPJQJ^JmH sH tH jš³ãjlvË Table Grid7:VÖ0ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@þOò@ø•centeralign¤d¤d[$$67˜BêC¾DòG5HoINP¯QÞY.s $5H[m€‘¤¹ÌÏ.sÖÿÿÿÿ-JUV·¸./ ¶· 45^_®ó¯÷ ÆÇ?@ê¨A_ƒ"„"=&>&ˆ)·¸9+¦+,,:2;2S4T4ª6«6J76B9B:B³B´B5C6C–D—DII÷KøKPPQaQ®R°R\U3[4[0]1]ü_ý_®` byd¶fkÊlanbnçnèn o¡opp´pqeqwq{q|q©qªq«q¬q²q³q ´qµq¶q·q¸q¹qºq»q¼q½q¾q¿qÀqÂqÃqÄqÅqÆqÇqÈqÉqÊqËqÌqÍqÎqÐqÑqÒqÔqÕqÖq×qØqÙqÚqÛqÜqÝqÞqçqèqéqêqrrrr0rArRrerxrŠrr®r ™0€€Ô
˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0 M-JUV·¸. ¶· 45ÆÇ?@ê¨A_`„">&ˆ)¸*¦+,,:2;2S4T4ª6«6J76B:B1]ý bÊlpqeqwq{q|q©qªq«q¬q²q³q ´qµq¶q·q¸q¹qºq»q¼q½q¾q¿qÀqÂqÃqÄqÅqÆqÇqÈqÉqÊqËqÌqÍqÎqÐqÑqÒqÔqr/sš0€€€š0€€€š0€€€š0€€š0€€š0€€˜0€€˜0€€š0€€˜0€€š0€
°{Kˆ00[Kˆ00Yš0€€š0€€€š0€€€š0€€€š0€€€š0€€€š0€€€š0€€€š0€€€š0€€€š0€€€Kˆ009˜™IKˆ008š0€€€š0€€€š@0€€€Kˆ0!0:"tš=Kˆ0!09Kˆ0 7KÈ00€KÈ0 08€š0€Bq 0€€š0€sš0€sKÈ00hš0€sš0€sš0€s«0€s«0€s ›0€s
š0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€sš0€ BBBBBEO EŠ >! $¦&s(+N/,6V:«>9JêKMPdTTWÈZç_3cßfjŸpv³w®yzxz{.{>ABCEFGHJKLMNPQRSUVWXYZ]^_bdghj ê"4 ´J3cbvªy¿yÝyòz.{?DIOT[acefi-{@Ç:;;c>Ç>Ù>.sXÿŒXÿŒ #E!•!ÿ•€ÿÿ$©R”%©R Ô”&©R””'©R Ô”(©RT”)©RT”*©R ””+©R””,©R T”-©R””.©R Ô”/©RÔ”0©R Ô”1©R”2©R ”))Ø6Ø67UPUP˜Y˜Y†Z†Zó\ó\%%/s 66â6â67_P_P¢Y¢YZZý\ý\///s i*€urn:schemas-microsoftcom:office:smarttags€Street/€http://www.5iantlavalampft-com:office:smarttagsk *€urn:schemas-microsoftcom:office:smarttags€address0€http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsV*€urn:schemas-microsoftcom:office:smarttags€place€http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/h*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City0€http://www.5iamasmicrosoft-com:office:smarttagsdŽ« ÁËÍÚíôù!")€‹—£«°±»ÀÇÉÐîõ W\]g‰›£àéëöû1<Yd#$+flst$)8<Kqyz„ˆ‘’›)6V[ksksª"µ"++W-^-˜-Ÿ-ñù-z44Î4×4¼5Å5Æ5Õ5ì5õ5ö5ü5q6z6æ6÷67 777¿9Ê9Ò9Ù9>>B>C>G>H>M>Q> [>>b>H@Q@ô@û@lBpBqBwBxBB€BƒBˆB”B•B˜BàBéB_ChCÈCÒC'D.DZDdD¡D¨D©D¬D¶DºD»D¾DMETEÌFÓFGGjGqGµG¹GÀGÅGÖ HHHH HH5H;HDH„H‹H;IDIEILIMIRIWIaIbIkIlIoIžI¥IOJWJ K'K NN1O6OP+PP‹P¦Q«Q0R8RSSSS˜UŸUjVrVWW… WŠW¿XÄX¦Y¬Y°Y»YÀYÃY[[™\£\^^¤^®^`agaØiÝi;jCjll“oowqzqrêrêrìrìrírírïrðròrórõrör,s/sTX†Š>B¡11ø6ú6„B†B!H#HSIUI¼Y¾Yr rrêrêrìrìrírírïrðròrórõrör,s/s33333333333¢B¢B›G›GHŸHuZZîfófGpGp®q±qÞqæqrrérêrêrìrìrírírïrðròrórõrörþrssss*s/srêrêrìrìrírírïrðròrórõrör,s/
—L¬Õ–°ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!tWBu"µÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿâ¶gT‹(tÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWbBiº¢Èiÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ2mnÇþNÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ.'Óp -bÑÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¨W•t„KˆÏÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ\L x\z˜òÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ*„Є˜þÆÐ^„Є˜þ.„8„˜þÆ8^„8„˜þ.„ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þ.„„˜þÆ^„„˜þ.„p„˜þÆp^„p„˜þ.„Ø „˜þÆØ ^„Ø „˜þ.„@„˜þÆ@^„@„˜þ. „¨„˜þƨ^„¨„˜þ.„„˜þÆ^„„˜þ.„Є˜þÆÐ^„Є˜þ.„8„˜þÆ8^„8„˜þ.„ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þ.„„˜þÆ^„„˜þ.„p„˜þÆp^„p„˜þ.„Ø „˜þÆØ ^„Ø „˜þ.„@„˜þÆ@^„@„˜þ. „¨„˜þƨ^„¨„˜þ.„„˜þÆ^„„˜þ.„ „0ýÆ ^„ „0ýo(.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø „Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „¨„˜þƨ^„¨„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „x„˜þÆx^„x„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „H„LÿÆH^„H„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „脘þÆè^„脘þ‡hˆH.‚ „¸„LÿƸ^„¸„Lÿ‡hˆH.„8„0ýÆ8^„8„0ýo()€ „ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „p„LÿÆp^„p„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „@„˜þÆ@^„@„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „à„LÿÆà^„à„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „°„˜þÆ°^„°„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „P„LÿÆP^„P„Lÿ‡hˆH. „Ç„müÆÇ^„Ç„müCJo(()€ „l „˜þÆl ^„l „˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „<„LÿÆ<^„<„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „Ü„˜þÆÜ^„Ü„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „¬„LÿƬ^„¬„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „|„˜þÆ|^„|„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „L„˜þÆL^„L„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „„LÿÆ^„„Lÿ‡hˆH.„8„0ýÆ8^„8„0ýo(.€ „ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „p„LÿÆp^„p„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „@„˜þÆ@^„@„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „à„LÿÆà^„à„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „°„˜þÆ°^„°„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „P„LÿÆP^„P„Lÿ‡hˆH.„ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þo(.€ „p„˜þÆp^„p„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „@„LÿÆ@^„@„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „à„˜þÆà^„à„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „°„LÿÆ°^„°„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „P„˜þÆP^„P„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „ „LÿÆ ^„ „Lÿ‡hˆH.„8„˜þÆ8^„8„˜þo()€„„˜þÆ^„„˜þ.‚„Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø „Lÿ.€„¨„˜þƨ^„¨„˜þ.€„x„˜þÆx^„x„˜þ.‚„H„LÿÆH^„H„Lÿ.€„„˜þÆ^„„˜þ.€„脘þÆè^„脘þ.‚„¸„LÿƸ^„¸„Lÿ.„8„0ýÆ8^„8„0ýo()€ „ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þ‡hˆH. ‚ „p„LÿÆp^„p„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „@„˜þÆ@^„@„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „à„LÿÆà^„à„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „°„˜þÆ°^„°„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „P„LÿÆP^„P„Lÿ‡hˆH.„ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þo(.€ „p„˜þÆp^„p„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „@„LÿÆ@^„@„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „à„˜þÆà^„à„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „°„LÿÆ°^„°„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „P„˜þÆP^„P„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „ „LÿÆ ^„ „Lÿ‡hˆH.„ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þo(.€ „p„˜þÆp^„p„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „@„LÿÆ@^„@„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „à„˜þÆà^„à„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „°„LÿÆ°^„°„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „P„˜þÆP^„P„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „ „LÿÆ ^„ „Lÿ‡hˆH.„8„˜þÆ8^„8„˜þo(()€„„˜þÆ^„„˜þ.‚„Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø „Lÿ.€„¨„˜þƨ^„¨„˜þ.€„x„˜þÆx^„x„˜þ.‚„H„LÿÆH^„H„Lÿ.€„„˜þÆ^„„˜þ. €„脘þÆè^„脘þ.‚„¸„LÿƸ^„¸„Lÿ.„8„0ýÆ8^„8„0ýo()€ „ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „p„LÿÆp^„p„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „@„˜þÆ@^„@„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „à„LÿÆà^„à„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „°„˜þÆ°^„°„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „P„LÿÆP^„P„Lÿ‡hˆH.„8„˜þÆ8^„8„˜þo(()€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø „Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „¨„˜þƨ^„¨„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „x„˜þÆx^„x„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „H„LÿÆH^„H„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „脘þÆè^„脘þ‡hˆH.‚ „¸„LÿƸ^„¸„Lÿ‡hˆH.„8„0ýÆ8^„8„0ýo(.€ „ „˜þÆ ^„ „˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „p„LÿÆp^„p„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „@„˜þÆ@^„@„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „„˜þÆ^„„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „à„LÿÆà^„à„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „°„˜þÆ°^„°„˜þ‡hˆH.€ „€„˜þÆ€^„€„˜þ‡hˆH.‚ „P„LÿÆP^„P„Lÿ‡hˆH.~ù!=,.'Óp!tWà~— L¨W•t2mþÿÿÿ亸N}:œnñ>â¶g6ÅBWbBi\L xÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿðº¸
@OJQJo(·ðÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWW8Num2WW8Num3ÿÿŠËl• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @¾Q61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @Ô84f @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @%G @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @кΠ@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @â¶t‘ Žµš @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @,jJJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ÖGöË @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @(Îܦ Î\4¸ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @xóx ¦Ð¾È 8Â\0Zú'ˆBÐÐddæTáe‘ 1"š 8 1U™q] ‚qIÞZ0ãêD›ÐŠCÓzêD›&. M]N».#6Ðú'ˆBN».KK}CE¸U¡“Ve‘½+—ZqIÞZ"š . M]ªyGbÍ¥f0ãK)ðoU™qvŠCÓz¹å¸¹'æ(;¼NIPíVEazgÜkâpb¶ra#°&±,¶,CFrCw©-·>üA9NKQîUÞq‡{‹;?þE{FƒHPTß[Zu ŽÁ!4¬PT>^ d@eã"+#+)Jˆg»r8È0q1=5g=nFúXÏNX(ÖByGm]ºjþj© ‰#ë<d@à@‹kö ³N ?O XY , Û š œ î= ¦> D îL ?Z rl Bv x Ah8[E}GHVQÐ!ß9¶š & 0 ¬' »6 öL q[ ¹¸?"œ9SiËoL'e jŸuˈ I1¢8D;©>dBZ»{³ ‹©I×S}b”dJ{&Ø m!M2¢46á6;C×^¹ðÔ
£Y6÷B&Tó[t]ådL0c1L@„i2t®w«ïÂ4u:3<IV³Y{dËqà— ù,òKPêb¬d•h™výw @Ûœ#+ŒVwk-Zâkyľ¯4¬F¢RUÃh"rZœ Ñ0ªD“NshNjKsÄ~O¼Á)³GTEx£{Ý$V˜(/47F I”mŸrù}É" F,Q.95ÔBGÈXÝbími·ºã'V6vF›_NeÏznH³08A×CDS)% "3 ÷3 ‚7 5A úa @q €z !Ü !;)!œ$]0šf0â0`&1)1y2´2Ø#2d'2ô22d42×72F2yi2|l2øx2“ 3ƒ3À7383Öi3y3Öy3£T4[4;i4º5þ5 5†5<&505YX5G6© 6€)6ì.6ßV6— w6V77Ï7[7#&7 (7ß+7j37?7»A7pa7›k7ý8ž#8¾i8™9! 9†9%q9Ûr9æ:i#:1:¤B:Ž]:A(;¼A; D; S;<�<�|4<�Ë=
<�Di<�¾q<�.=Š3=ÿD=tJ=íf=qs=@>Ù,>;@>¹A>x[>]>h>Î?é?'?“?Ò ?+%??.?w.?Õ8?•B?S_?Ãj?~?´@}@Õ@u>@²W@€t@4A·"A… %AƒDA¢cAFuA|AB$B'B1BK8B‹>BëC²!C”?C‘KCdMCÔzCÚDôD˜D×7DS;D8Eý;EtSE3TEïcEÌFBFªF¹FtIFUFÁWF1oF]GìGÆ%GÄG{2G2G RG¢UGÌ]GiG yG”HQ@H(BH•FHÖHH…XHÇjH§xH®I.IÜI+"I«8IE?IUCIÿFIÕWI[}IÑ2JŸ[J bJ0|JYJS KK2KÎ$Kÿ%K 4K7AKdGK5IK^LKZK\K¾pKuKºL„'L|KL»NLSLhULžULáMl1MÇtMN NB,NW7N´ENýVN|nN O·OÎO?"O "O/#OúLOINO”dOP¹P**
P²KPpLPäLPòPP5RPèPrcPögPqP÷0Q[;QRQ;RNR‰#RD.Rö@R1GRÛZRØ]RÿcRESÂ8SVSyaSDdS‘vS¡wSÀT[T¿TƒTô-Tƒ0T72T? 8TtBTüNT-TT¡T3yTUUªU°7U±8Uè=U£KUDLU€MUu VƒV;VŸ(V.V³0V5V¼SV0{VQW Wc(W]8W-BW²GWNW¤zW‚X XIX¯XDXEDX2_XÏ_XGfX!8Y¢PY|YÒ{YFZÉZmZ( Z;*ZågZæ[§[f[[ö.[G[ J[¿T[»^[^a[šj[n[jp[’w[¬\I \„\¥\ ;\IN\¡S\jx\ ]&]¾8]§H]þ^‹^t^£"^ƒ#^²'^(^+=^K^N^ÇN^ÇV^|^¼}^ˆ_# _‘%_é&_~2_:_€C_Êb_áz_în"`–
vY~_`#a{aýa®aÒHaIWagaqa‚raðyabmbAbÌLb]gbËibnb¦rb=ub9yb ccGcà c.$cW6cØ6cÊ@cˆBcçxc/dkEd FdPZd°gd|dÞeö e e“,e;Ce#beåmeqeŽre]f/ffGfHSfTfÜsf ~f:~fVgåg®#g2(g¥3gKg¥~gh€&hÓ-hW:hË;hPh5_h4fhìhh?rháiX3iJ:iD@i¶ZiÞjh jKjÍj–jz3jXAj¯Njü\j]gj|j3k>kËAkåGkpHk•RklkFl»l]!lý=lùKlïNl\l†^lžlV&mjmr0m’:mMmŽymcn_.n[/n÷0nHnˆKnMMnknln£{nZo-0o^? oð@oîYo«\oÿhopoŽpoÒpoÐxo§ pQppV|Ú^|)k|I}¿}ß%}C.}ÚI}ÜI}IV} g})ÖKm~(t~.y~;›%)Ä66JW²€M"€m"€å,€Y1€»5€ ;€ÝB€— _€g€In€ o€á?¾MäR½{R‚Î ‚‚R%‚Õ.‚ä/‚:2‚t‚ît‚Ðw‚={‚…ƒNƒT$ƒ¼TƒHZƒ,\ƒ0cƒÓ=„ÜT„][„¡{„ÿ|„S…å…?… -…,1…®I…¨Y…ðb…;g… p&†Ž8†5>†˜?†»T†e^†ne†¾m†D:‡–;‡,L‡¿c‡æc‡ÊˆÕ"ˆÞ,ˆò9ˆLUˆhWˆ*
**[ˆrˆe‰‰ý$‰s-‰Ë9‰4E‰f‰"‰¼ŠŒŠŠ„Šv+Šo>ŠŽ?ŠäZŠ$mŠúuŠ#‹‘‹.‹A‹3G‹j‹ÑŒ¨AŒiPŒ'SŒÂ{Œ{t‹Vº=OYFŽˆŽ ŽuŽTŽ iŽ yŽF’ Í ¨»CINFQ,`ÓmÈ'Y+q-¡5R×eyqÁ|‘Û$‘“/‘×D‘áI‘>_‘e‘øv‘ð ’’J4’IY’z’“m““-5“QG“ÂT“þ“”+”Ø,”YC”ÒX”b”ø•Ô•ï•ÿ•Â-•q8•°:• >•SO•^a•c•Qm•z•Ô– Ô –÷ –W–Ù#–ë%–ö'–Ø9–Ú?–¨P–L[–%b–Ee–‰e–! —— —Ù—ò— —¤)—žU—-l—*
ë)˜¯=˜(S˜»[˜]^˜á™v™(™f™+™ž/™8™AL™ûi™©u™Ò|™J š"$š†5šŽXšìaš¬nšå|š1›“››- ›*
,›6›˜:›àB››C›(p›÷t›œ¥+œj0œ“6œKœOœ›Yœû_œüaœ{^Œ -
/ñ@VBnnàž³ž+žfAžøPžNRž4Yž]\ž¶]žLŸ^QŸ¨ Ñ žt Ê¡T#¡š*¡1,¡ž7¡ZC¡÷E¡•F¡¡}w¡ÿ ¢,¢#¢”5¢É:
**¢Ý?¢Pp¢a£¥££.£v£&¤2¤EQ¤1n¤¥œ¥í4¥g:¥t<¥bA¥yC¥¤i¥ßx¥½ ¦¦'¦Ž2¦1D¦ÓD¦df¦Ày¦ûy¦Ù §J§Ê!§|,§B0§¼9§y@§=L§žZ§Õy§Ñ ¨d¨¨ö!¨b0¨ÁV¨²X¨^Y¨ói¨/|¨¡~¨ò©«$©³T©³Y©Ì©îi©ÿr©‹"ª ª®ªà0ª¥8ªÕNªÈ`ªmªmªÿ
«þ$«Ê0«ò4«Ë7«9«Ç=«NJ«¡K«^«Ej«±l«ón«go«K}«¬·"¬¤¬0-¬ÔU¬ZZ¬”b¬j¬5˜ –(Án-qqB®9E®2O®s®é¯Þ1¯b¯êj¯M{¯°ö°P °e, °/°‚T°®X°ŒY°ïg°Ü±& ±<"±¯/±•6±5<±çB±ÉD±jG±ÄX±Vm±+²x²M²²›5²)<²\²4k²x²S$³"+³¥G³ïq³Fx³ %´ÙE´êM´vd´dj´@w´o µáµLµIMµ¶Wµ“sµÌ ¶57¶ÖA¶€B¶7Q¶)R¶•S¶ÿ`¶ue¶R·U·ã+·ê1·v·³¸¸+¸f5¸—X¸¬\¸ƒt¸†z¸D¹Z)¹.¹W¹iY¹Ód¹£t¹·}¹Dººm9ºSº|lº$»€»1»òx»1¼y¼"K¼lu¼þ½½ð½à@½°C½s]½Xs½Ëz½¾ 5¾R¾ë]¾»r¾¿Ÿ¿ $¿Ø1¿V4¿ ;¿=_¿>À.À#À¯%ÀJÀ"6Àc>ÀéÁ_ÁÝaÁnÁ™ÂQÂóXÂìZÂÔ\ 3Ã,3ÃFLðZÃñÃnÃœpÃ?|çÄpÄ«yÄ‹ÅèÅ$$ÅiXÅ*dÅjÅHnÅ5Æ-ƹÆ1ÆôÆ&Æ-ƬAÆ nÆuÆ¢zÆÇkÇE(Ç+ÇÛ=Ç LǬQÇ ZÇþbÇÛqǸrÇQ}ÇPÈ'ȲÈ)Èã5Èž6ÈX<ÈYÈ×È É’É2ÉÐÉ{UÉXÉÞ]ÉÊpKʆSÊ YÊ;ÊŠ}ÊýÊFˬ˗Ëd/ËC4ËÆBËGYËPaË? eËlv˘̡Ì9Ì-Ì3ÌDÌ»ÌF0Ì>:̧IÌ&NÌÉTÌoÌÍ‹+Í1Í´9ÍšVÍczÍ(ÎoÎ2Î|8ÎN>Î-vÎÏÏœ(Ïå4ÏðPÏ(SÏB2ЕRÐlÑÑi
**Ñ7&ÑB~ÑFÒxÒX=Òa?Ò5@Ò`HÒKXÒgÒÝ;ÓäÔwFÔdJÔ,pÔ²ÕÕóÕµ%ÕÇ'Õj+Õ¯+Õ|=ÕøFÕ¡JÕmZÕ]ÕœeÕíeÕXiÕynÕPÖBÖõDÖ{RÖ ××Õ ×Ë ×w&×,,×›9×ßU×Ät×AØ^0ØRDØJ؃eØjØènØ9Ù½Ù.$ÙR%Ù(Ù-Ù8.Ùî0Ùå1Ù±3ÙÅ5ÙxBÙFÙÿÚß"Úÿ4ÚLNÚÉcÚvÛ¹Û)Û¼/Ûp2Û BÛµHÛOfÛkÛÙxÛ£|ÛÜW Ü» ÜçÜÌܾÜ<ÜHÜQÜgÜÿiÜ(zܼzܧÝÝ”#ÝC7Ý›EÝòJÝ"PÝ°\ݨeÝ]ÞÞ”Þ !ÞÂ0Þc?ÞDß+ß’ßñIßtaßßpß»wß÷àÈà%#àLà40àÓGàŸbànàŒsàá{à"áÄ5á0@á9@áÀSá@]á‹eáâiâ—pâ}âãåãÎ ãpã¡ãÁ(ã^8ãú9ãèLãdcãRoãýsãzäƒä$"äËBäDVä¤å å,6åÛ:åÓGå1QåRåbåk æ²æGæ’æ3æøOæçé ç$MçªVç7lçèµèlèmèE$è%èïèç[èCeègèAxè€éÈéöéÑ0éF9é£Fé;OéHPéÔ*
ê‘(êÕ<ê~=ê+Gê½PêUê÷Wê1^êèê,ë’ëµQëÌcëreë6ì˜ì›ìÖì¥ìd'ìÆ'ìÊ<ì¡Tì@aìµí #íx1íÂQí(íÚzíµîkî4îDIî‰ïgïÅïï‰)ïÝ)ïÊ;ï«^ïEcïL'ð[)ð‘,ð ´;ð%@ð:Cð/\ðéjða ñ·ñq/ñd;ñr_ñ$fñ˜wñ¢{ñSòß òò¿%òb/òâRòeó¿/óªMó# ôÎôúôŠ%ô&ô·(ô·<ô^NôP_ôºdô½gô7pôrsô+ô#õT&õ? 3õ«7õŸOõèPõÌZõ}fõPxõyõ¹ööj#öc+ö$nöH ÷I8÷b9÷1A÷E÷®F÷M÷?i÷‘}÷xøò9øüSøMZøvsøö|ø}øèùÃù? ùÂùÑùjù‡8ù¾OùñSùñù“tùUúÊ úŸ&ú¡8ú÷Cú)Eú5Gú§TúWhúûøû˜3û3<û¨RûyXû®oûÿtû]+üïWüajü tüûýÁ<ý"GýˆMý–ný5yýôþþ+þ%Xþ±sþ/ÿßÿ7 ÿÄÿaÿO(ÿ=ÿšQÿTnÿ7àYý_çn«q²q³qrr0rér/sQd 65 65 65333ÿ@€³q³q Fà³q³q.s@@ÿÿUnknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿGÿ:àCxÀ ÿTimes New Roman5€Symbol3&ÿ:àCxÀ ÿArialA‡ŸBook Antiqua7&ÿ¡[ @ŸVerdanaUArial Unicode MSArial"1ˆðÐähxäøµ6GÒò5ÇŠ$a:Ïa:Ï!ðpp ´´4dãqãq2ƒqðÜHXðÿ?äÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ˜(2ÿÿHON BLE SRI JUSTICE KaphcUSERL þÿà…ŸòùOh«‘+'³Ù0€˜¸ÄÔàð 0<H ThpxäHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE KaphcNormalUSER1930Microsoft Office Word@@ß@h¹/œšÐ@üø¤}eÌ@Òä0ôœÐaþÿÕÍÕœ.“—+,ù®DÕÍÕœ.“—+,ù®Lhpˆ˜ ¨°¸À ÈêäWipro LimitedÏ:ãqæHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE KTitleØ 8@PID_HLINKSäAVjavascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/PR/0053/1931','1');P~i;javascript:fnOpenGlobal !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<�=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[]^`abcdefghijkþÿÿÿmnopqrsþÿÿÿuvwxyz{|}~€‚ƒ„… †‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¯°±²³ ´µ¶·¸¹þÿÿÿ»¼½¾¿ÀÁþÿÿÿÃÄÅÆÇÈÉþÿÿÿýÿÿÿýÿÿÿÍþÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀF°Ì@MôœÐÏ€Data
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿl1Tableÿÿÿÿt‹ŠWordDocumentÿÿÿÿ5ÖSummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿºDocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÂCompO ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8ô9²q
1 issue framed by the court
Could the appeal seeking partition and a joint declaration proceed without impleading the deceased third respondent's legal heir?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balireddy Appalanarasaiah (died) and others Vs. Balireddy Saddhu and othersRelied on¶3
Balireddy Appalanarasaiah (died) and others Vs. Balireddy Saddhu and others
Kanakarathanammal Vs. V.S. Loganatha MudaliarRelied on¶3
Kanakarathanammal Vs. V.S. Loganatha Mudaliar
Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai Vs. Venkateswara RaoRelied on¶3
Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai Vs. Venkateswara Rao
Jahangirji and others Vs. K. KumarRelied on¶3
Jahangirji and others Vs. K. Kumar
K. Bhaskar Rao Vs. K.A. Rama RaoRelied on¶3
K. Bhaskar Rao Vs. K.A. Rama Rao
Naba Kumar Hazra and another Vs. Radhashyam Mahish and othersReferred¶3
Naba Kumar Hazra and another Vs. Radhashyam Mahish and others
Chenthiperumal Pillai Chanthanamuthu Pillai Vs. D.M. DevasahayamReferred¶3
Chenthiperumal Pillai Chanthanamuthu Pillai Vs. D.M. Devasahayam
Addepalli Venkata Laxmi Vs. Ayinampudi Narasimha RaoDistinguished¶3
Addepalli Venkata Laxmi Vs. Ayinampudi Narasimha Rao
Dhanalakshmi and others Vs. P. Mohan and othersRelied on¶3
Dhanalakshmi and others Vs. P. Mohan and others
The State of Punjab Vs. Nathu RamRelied on¶3
The State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram
Sushil K. Chakravarty Vs. Tej Properties Private LimitedApplied¶4
Sushil K. Chakravarty Vs. Tej Properties Private Limited
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Apparao
Appalaraju
Pydamma
Venkataswamy
Appalanaidu
Sriramulu
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
