THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.503 of 1998 Dated:- 29th July, 2011 Between:- Akula Yadagiri …Appellant AND Moola Ram Narsimha and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.503 of 1998 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1998 passed in A.S.No.20 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, Nalgonda District (‘the lower appellate Court’, for brevity), whereby and whereunder, the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1996 passed in O.S.No.190 of 1993 by the District Munisif, Suryapet (‘the trial Court’, for brevity) was set aside. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit against defendants 1 to 3 for perpetual injunction, which was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment dated 16.10.1996. Challenging the said judgment, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.20 of 1996 before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court, by impugned order, allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. 4. Providence has taken away the first defendant during the pendency of this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has not furnished any particulars of the Legal Representatives of the deceased first respondents. Then, this Court, by order dated 24.06.2011, observed that the appellant may ascertain the particulars of the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent and to take out notices to them. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant is unable to secure the particulars of the Legal Representatives of the first respondent. 5. The Original Suit is for injunction restraining the first respondent to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Thus, admittedly, when the first respondent himself died, the cause of action does not survive. Admittedly, it is not the case of the appellant that the Legal Representatives of the deceased first respondent have been interfering with his possession. Admittedly, the plaintiff could not secure the whereabouts of the Legal Representatives of the deceased first respondent. Hence, the question of the first respondent, since deceased, or his Legal Representatives interfering with his peaceful possession does not arise. As far as the other respondents are concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that they are mere followers of the deceased first respondent. 6. In the above circumstances, since the first respondent is reportedly died, the appeal stands abated against him and the second appeal is disposed of with an observation that if respondents 2 and 3 or any other person interferes with the possession of the appellant/plaintiff, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh suit before appropriate forum seeking appropriate reliefs. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 29th July, 2011 Bvv