JUDGMENT 1. Since the lis involved in these appeals are same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. The appellants in these appeals are third parties to the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs, against the respondents/defendants vide OS.No.51 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District, at LB.Nagar, Hyderabad, seeking partition and separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule property. The said suit was decreed with costs vide judgment dated 15.11.2010 and directing the partition of plaint schedule properties in two equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs and the other share to the defendants. Aggrieved thereby, these appeals are filed contending that they are necessary parties to the said suit. 3. The brief facts of the cases are that the plaintiffs, who are the sons of Syed Naseeruddin Hussaini, are seeking partition of the properties that originally belonged to their grandfather Late Syed Ahmadullah Hussaini. Late Syed Ahmadullah Hussaini passed away on 01.01.1965 leaving behind several properties, including agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.1, 2, 35 to 37, 96, 102, 105, 106, and 145. After his death, his two sons, Syed Naseeruddin Hussaini and Syed Pasha Hussaini, partitioned the properties among themselves. The said partition was formalized in a written document dated 15.10.1966 and as per this partition, Syed Pasha Hussaini received properties in Sy.Nos.35, 37, 96, 102, 105, and 106, while Syed Naseeruddin Hussaini received properties in Sy.Nos.1, 2, 36, and 145. One of the properties, a mango and tamarind garden in Sy.No.34, was kept joint, with the understanding that the sons would enjoy its fruits alternately. This arrangement continued until the death of Syed Naseeruddin Hussaini on 30.04.1993. 4. After the death of Syed Naseeruddin Hussaini, the plaintiffs demanded partition from the defendants, D1 and D2, who are the wife and son of Syed Pasha Hussaini. However, D1 and D2 refused to partition of the properties and instead attempted to sell them. The plaintiffs learned that D1 and D2 had entered into an agreement of sale with D3 in respect of the schedule property. In response, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to D1 and D2 on 17.01.2005. As the dispute remained unresolved, the plaintiffs filed the said suit for partition, seeking to divide the properties among the legal heirs of Late Syed Ahmadullah Hussaini. In response, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to D1 and D2 on 17.01.2005. As the dispute remained unresolved, the plaintiffs filed the said suit for partition, seeking to divide the properties among the legal heirs of Late Syed Ahmadullah Hussaini. Being aggrieved by partition of suit between the plaintiffs and defendants, the appellants filed these appeals challenging the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2010 directing the partition of plaint schedule properties in two equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs and the other share to the defendants. Hence, these appeals. 5. Heard Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for appellants, Sri RA.Chary, and Sri AK.Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for respondents. 6. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the trial Court committed grave error by not considering the true nature of the suit schedule property, and that the property was not an agricultural land, as described in the plaint, but rather comprised of several houses and plots with well-developed roads and civic amenities like electricity and water lines. He contended that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the persons in actual possession of the property, including the appellants, were not made parties to the suit, and that the same was a fatal defect, as the plaintiffs and defendants had colluded to obtain a decree behind the back of the real parties in possession. He lamented that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants were in possession of the suit property, and that the same is a clear indication that the suit was not genuine, but rather a collusive attempt to obtain a decree that could be used to harass the real parties in possession. 7. He asserted that the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, contending that the plaintiffs had deliberately omitted to implead the real parties in possession, including the appellants, in order to obtain a decree that could be used to their advantage. He averred that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants had a common interest in obtaining a decree, and that they had colluded to achieve this objective. He averred that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants had a common interest in obtaining a decree, and that they had colluded to achieve this objective. He incessantly contended that the impugned judgment under appeal violated the principles of natural justice, as the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the appellants and other real parties in possession had not been made parties to the suit, and that they had been denied an opportunity to present their case, which comes under clear violation of the principle of audi alteram partem, which requires that all parties who may be affected by a judgment must be given an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2010. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for appellants and submitted that the appeals itself are not maintainable as they challenge the preliminary decree passed in the year 2010, whereas, the final decree was passed in the year 2013 and possession was delivered to the respondents in the year 2018. He contended that the appellants, who claim to be plot owners, have no right to challenge the decree passed by the trial Court, and that they ought to have filed claim petitions in the execution proceedings instead of appealing against the preliminary decree. He further contended that the prayer of the appellants' is based on sale deeds that are void and ab-initio, as they were executed by persons who had no exclusive rights or title over the entire property. He pointed out that the sale deeds did not contain any recital regarding the delivery of physical possession of the land to C. Divakar Reddy, and that there were no boundaries mentioned in the sale deed nor any plan annexed to identify or localize the sold property. 9. He incessantly contended that the appellants have not produced the original sale deed or proved their ownership, and that they have no right to claim the entire property as per the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court. He lamented that if the appellants have any claim, they ought to have claimed it from their vendors only, and not from the decree holders. He lamented that if the appellants have any claim, they ought to have claimed it from their vendors only, and not from the decree holders. He pointed out that C.Divakar Reddy, the vendor of the appellants, was a party to the suit and did not file any appeal or counterclaim. He averred that the same is fatal to the contention of the appellants', as they are not claiming any right from their vendor, and that the alleged vendor's vendor who got half of the land is also not a party to the appeal. He asserted that the appeals are barred by limitation, as they were filed after a lapse of eight years from the date of the preliminary decree, and that the appellants have suppressed material facts, including the passing of the final decree and the execution proceedings, and that this is sufficient ground to dismiss the appeal. 10. In addition, learned counsel for respondents articulated that A.S.No.954 of 2018 was filed by some of the plot owners challenging the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.51 of 2005 and the same was dismissed, observing that the appellants have the remedy of filing claim petitions under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in the execution proceedings pending before the trial Court. He further submitted that E.P.No.29 of 2013 was filed by the respondents, decreed holders, for delivery of possession of the suit property, whereunder, the execution Court delivered possession of the share of the respondents to an extent of Acs.06.15 Guntas on 03.05.2018 and the appellants did not file any objections before the bailiff or before the execution Court, claiming their rights over the said small plots. He asserted that execution Court excluded the plots claimed by the appellants from the delivery of possession, in view of the stay orders passed by this Court in the appeals filed by the plot owners. Therefore, he concluded his submissions averring that the appeals are devoid of merits, both in law and on facts, and prayed this Court to dismiss the same. 11. Now the points for consideration are : I. Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.51 of 2025 are entitled for partition and for equal share along with defendants ? II. Whether the subject properties are already partitioned ? III. Whether the properties were partitioned in terms of partition deed dated 15.10.1966 ? IV. 11. Now the points for consideration are : I. Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.51 of 2025 are entitled for partition and for equal share along with defendants ? II. Whether the subject properties are already partitioned ? III. Whether the properties were partitioned in terms of partition deed dated 15.10.1966 ? IV. Whether the plaintiffs were not in joint possession of the subject properties, as contended in written statement ? V. Whether the impugned judgment requires interference of this Court ? POINT Nos. I to V: 12. Having regard to the rival submissions, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that originally, the plaintiffs filed suit for partition of suit schedule property i.e., in relation to survey No.34, stating that there is a partition deed between the brothers, according to which set of properties were divided into equal shares between them, except for the property in survey No.34 which was in possession of elder brother, whereas, there is a recital in the said partition deed that the fruits of survey No.34 be enjoyed by both sons, in alternate years. Therefore, from the date of partition deed they were enjoying the same and after the death of D1, they claimed partition for the said property but they were denied the same, as such, suit was filed. 13. On going through the partition deed filed by the plaintiffs under Ex.A1, it is seen that there is recital in the said deed with regard to survey No.34 that the brothers would have equal shares and they would enjoy the fruits of the said property alternately, whereas, the contention of defendant before the trial Court was that only to the extent of fruits of the property i.e., the mango and tamarind trees, the fruits would be shared equally and that in the said partition deed it was clearly shown that survey No.34 is in occupation and possession of D1, therefore, they are entitled for the said share of property. The recitals in the partition deed would clearly show that the brothers are having equal shares of the property, though the same was under the possession of elder brother. Further, the recitals would clearly clarify that both parties are having equal share in the said property. The recitals in the partition deed would clearly show that the brothers are having equal shares of the property, though the same was under the possession of elder brother. Further, the recitals would clearly clarify that both parties are having equal share in the said property. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of defendant that they were exclusive owner and possessor of the property in survey No.34, as such, there is absolutely no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court, over the aspect of partition deed. 14. Reverting to the appeals on hand which are filed by third parties contending that they are subsequent purchasers and that being so, though they were necessary parties to the suit, they were not made parties as the said suit was a collusive suit of plaintiffs and defendants. Further, that in the year 1979 itself D1 and D2 sold the said property to D3 and D3 in turn, sold the same to various purchasers and that appellants purchased the property from the subsequent purchasers of D3. At this stage, it is imperative to note that earlier, some of the subsequent purchasers filed appeal before this Court vide A.S.No.954 of 2018 whereunder, this Court observed that they are required to file claim petitions before the trial Court instead of preferring appeals, as such, the appellants therein filed claim petitions before trial Court in E.P.No.29 of 2013 and the record shows that the said claim petitions were dismissed by the trial Court. Further, as seen from the record, it is to be noted that the subject property was purchased subsequent to filing of suit and the claim petitions were dismissed observing that claim petitioners therein were pendente lite purchasers and in the present cases also, some of the purchasers are pendente lite purchasers and they are challenging the partition itself, but there is no such illegality in the judgment of the trial Court in this regard, as it is clear that survey No.34 is a joint property. 15. 15. Perusal of record would reveal that in A.S.No.954 of 2018 I.A.No.1 of 2018 seeking leave to appeal and I.A.No.3 of 2018 seeking to condone the inordinate delay of 2676 days in preferring appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2010 passed in O S No 51/2005, were filed, which were dismissed along with the appeal itself whereunder, it was observed that ‘in case the appellants are still in possession of the plots, to direct that they shall not be dispossessed from the total extent of 1003 square yards of land for a period of four weeks from today, to enable them to file their claim petitions, in the pending execution proceedings, in the meanwhile. Needless to state that, in case no such petition is filed within the aforesaid period of four weeks, execution proceedings may go on’. That being so, record would show that possession was already delivered to the respondents herein, whereunder, they excluded plot Nos.25, 91 and 94, and they already left the plots which were under challenge and it was mentioned that stay was granted by this Court in another plot number. 16. In view of the above, when there is no illegality in the decree of trial Court, the appellants herein cannot claim the properties stating that they are not made as parties to decree. Further, in the evidence affidavit of DW.2 it was stated that he purchased plot bearing Nos.144 and 145, and in his cross examination he admitted that there are tamarind and mango trees in survey No.34. That being so, when it is clearly seen that D2 admitted that property is in possession of third party in his cross examination, the same was considered by the trial Court and suit was decreed thereof. Therefore, it can be observed that there are no illegalities or irregularities in the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2010 warranting interference of this Court. There are no just and proper grounds in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point Nos.I to V are answered. 17. In the result, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.