IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR ASMP.No.1469 of 2011 & A.S.No.359 of 2010 Between: Thota Venkateswara Rao ..... PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND Thota Lakshmi Sambrajyam and 6 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR ASMP.No.1469 of 2011 & A.S.No.359 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.59/2006 on the file of the III Addl.District Judge, Guntur for partition of A & B schedule properties into 15 shares and for separate possession of 11 such shares, C-schedule property into 25 shares and for separate possession of 6 shares to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. Defendants Nos.2 and 3 are the sisters of the plaintiff. Defendants Nos.4 to 6 are the children of brother of the plaintiff. Defendant No.7 is the wife of the brother of the plaintiff and mother of Defendants Nos.4 to 6. As Respondents/Defendants Nos.1 to 3 remained ex parte in the suit proceedings, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has given up the appeal against Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the appeal against Respondents Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed. The appellant and Respondent No.7 are present and they are identified by the respective parties. Both of them have admitted that they have entered into a compromise and also confirmed the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Compromise. The suit schedule property consists of A, B & C schedules, which are the subject matter of the compromise. Apart from, some other properties were also standing in the name of the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant, Respondents Nos.4 to 7 have entered into compromise and filed this petition seeking to record the terms of compromise and dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise. Accordingly, ASMP.1469/2011 is allowed recording the compromise. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise. However, as Respondents Nos.4 to 6 being minors, represented by their mother and natural guardian Respondent No.7, the 7th respondent is directed not to alienate any properties, allotted in favour of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 jointly, in any manner, without permission of the Court. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dated: 20.07.2011 Dsr