IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8553 of 2001 Between: Smt. Madduri Laxmamma … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Khairatabad, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A. Ravinder Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri A. Pulla Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8553 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 19.03.2001 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Pulla Reddy for respondent No.4. Having regard to the events transpired after filing of this writ petition, it will suffice if brief facts are stated. The petitioner is the sister’s daughter of respondent No.4, who approached respondent No.3 for entering her name in the revenue record in respect of the 50% of the land standing in the name of the petitioner. The said application having been allowed by respondent No.3, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2, who, by his order dated 11.09.1989 allowed the same. However, in the revision petition filed by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 reversed the said order of respondent No.2 by his order dated 19.03.2001 and restored the order passed by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri A. Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that while the revision petition was pending before respondent No.1, respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.144 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for partition and separate possession of the property in respect of which entries were made by respondent No.3 in her favour and that the preliminary decree in the said suit was passed on 30.11.2004. He also submitted that against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed A.S.No.141 of 2005 and the purchasers of some of the properties sold by the petitioner filed A.S.No.167 of 2005 in this Court and that passing of final decree was stayed. These facts have been admitted by Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however, submitted that order of respondent No.1 is based on erroneous findings of facts. He invited my attention to the impugned order in which respondent No.1 stated that respondent No.4 is the mother of Narasimha Reddy, who is the husband of the petitioner and hence, respondent No.4 is entitled to a share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In view of the admitted fact that a decree was passed in favour of respondent No.4 by the competent civil Court, and appeals against the said decree are pending in this Court, the questions whether the relationship between the Narasimha Reddy and respondent No.4 was that of son and mother and whether respondent No.4 succeeded to the properties of the said Narasimha Reddy to the said extent of half share are required to be gone into in the appeal. Irrespective of the findings given by respondent Nos.1 to 3, the judgment of the civil Court subject to the result of the appeal is conclusive and binding on the parties. Hence, I find it not necessary to examine the merits or otherwise of the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the petitioner and respondent No.4 to pursue the pending appeals filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 in O.S.No.144 of 1997. I also deem it appropriate to direct both the parties to maintain status quo existing as on today in all respects with respect to the properties in dispute till the disposal of the appeal pending in this Court. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.10917 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.08.2008 ES