IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTIEIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 1512 OF 2005 Between: Katthi Narsaiah & 4-Ors. … Appellants-Defendants 5 to 9 V/s. Ravula Venkatamma & 9-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri KVR Subramanya Narsu Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Palivela Satyaraja Babu Sri P.V. Ramesh R-1, R-6, R-8 to R-10 died vide CT. R-2 & R-3 appeared R-5 to R-7 unserved The Court made the following judgment (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 1512 OF 2005 JUDGMENT : Heard Sri K.V.R. Subramanya Narsu, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Palivela Satyaraja Babu and Sri P.V. Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as “plaintiffs” and “defendants”. 3. The deceased, first plaintiff filed OS.No. 282 of 1996 against the defendants 1 to 4 and subsequently defendants 5 to 12 were added vide orders dated 04-11-1991 passed in CRP.No. 2143 of 1990 on the file of this Court. The suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction. The suit was decreed as prayed for by the learned trial court. 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh through the first defendant in the suit filed A.S.No. 98 of 2003. The defendants 5 to 9 filed A.S.No. 91 of 2001. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned VI-Additional District Judge, Warangal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Warangal filed S.A.SR. No. 374 of 2006, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court holding that at para No.4 of the common judgment dated 25-11- 2004 in AS.No. 91 of 2001 and A.S.No. 98 of 2003, it was recorded in A.S.No. 98 of 2003, R-1, who was the plaintiff in the lower Court in O.S.No. 282 of 1996 died. R-10 to R-12 also died. No steps were taken to bring their legal representatives on record, hence appeal against R-1 and R-10 to R-12 was ordered abated by this Court on 3- 8-2004. The correct addresses of R-2 and R-3 not furnished, hence this Court dismissed appeal against R-2 and R-3 on the same date i.e., 03-8-2004. 6. The learned single Judge noticed the fact that the legal representatives of the above mentioned respondents were not brought on record when the appeal was pending, the second appeal especially in the light of the fact that when the plaintiff is no more and when she died long back, no steps being taken to bring the legal representatives on record, cannot be maintained and accordingly the learned single Judge rejected the second appeal at S.R. stage. 7. The present Second Appeal No. 1512 of 2005 is filed by the defendants 4 to 9. In this appeal also the legal representatives were not brought on record at an appropriate time and further the appellants have been claiming rights through the State, which is the first defendant and appellant in SA.SR.No. 374 of 2006. Therefore, in view of dismissal of the said appeal, this second appeal also is not maintainable. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE R . KANTHA RAO 28-02-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 1512 OF 2005 CIRCULATION No. 27 Date: 28-02-2011 Court Master : I s L