IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD S.A.M.P. (SR) No.35243 of 2011, S.A.M.P. No.2396 of 2011 and S.A. No.271 of 2004 S.A.M.P.(SR) No.35243 of 2011 and S.A. No.271 of 2004: Between: Nyalakonda Jayaprada and others .. Appellants/Petitioners AND Nyalakonda Rajamma and another .. Respondents/Respondents S.A.M.P. No.2396 of 2011: Between: Nyalakonda Rajamma and another .. Petitioners AND Nyalakonda Jayaprada and others .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: S.A.M.P. (SR) No.35243 of 2011 Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Though it is true that in the copy of the general power of attorney, the person in whose favour the attorney was executed, was described as Vijaya Devi and though the cause title of the petition and the vakalat filed by the power of attorney holder described her as Vijayalaxmi, there is no ambiguity about the identity of the person as the general power of attorney specifically described the attorney holder as the mother and wife of late Krishna Gopal Rao. Any misdescription in the general power of attorney, therefore, need not deter from acceptance of the request to permit the power of attorney holder to prosecute the matter on behalf of the 5th appellant and accordingly, this petition is ordered. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J S.A. No.271 of 2004 and S.A.M.P. No.2396 of 2011 S.A.M.P. (SR) No.35243 of 2011 is ordered permitting the general power of attorney holder, the mother, to represent the 5th appellant also in the further proceedings of the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents filed a memo stating that on expiry of the 1st respondent on 09-12-2010, the 2nd respondent alone was left as the sole legal representative and she being already on record, the memo may be recorded. A copy of the death certificate is also enclosed to the memo. On hearing the learned counsel for both parties, the memo is ordered. As already stated in the proceedings, dated 12-09-2011, appellants 2 and 3 and the 2nd respondent to the appeal admitted the terms of the compromise on being identified by the learned counsel for the parties and therefore, the compromise is recorded and the compromise petition in S.A.M.P. No.2396 of 2011 is ordered. In the light of S.A.M.P. No.2396 of 2011 being ordered on recording the compromise, the second appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15-09-2011 Svv