BILAL NAZKI, J. - (1.)Heard learned Counsel for parties.
(2.)There is a short question involved in this appeal on which the fate of the appeal rests therefore, we are confining ourselves to only one question which is basically a question of Law. But before that necessary facts will have to be mentioned.
(3.)Defendants Nos.l to 4 and 6 are the appellants. They were defendants in Original Suit No.4 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle, which was filed by the plaintiff who is first respondent in the appeal. He filed the suit for partition of the property. The partition was sought as an alternative relief and the basic relief sought for was the declaration of plaintiffs title to the plaint B-Schedule land and for possession. The relations between the parties was not disputed. According to the plaintiff himself, he had himself filed earlier a suit for partition, which was O.S.No.64 of 1954. A preliminary decree was passed and a final decree on the basis of a compromise entered into between the plaintiff and defendants was also passed. B-Schedule mentioned in this suit was allotted to the plaintiff by the final decree. But the final decree was not engrossed on a paper having sufficient stamps. Thereafter no steps were taken for the execution of decree by the plaintiff, which was passed on 11.2.1974 and then the present suit was filed on 1.8.1975. The suit was resisted by the defendants/appellants on various grounds. One of the grounds was that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.