IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL NO : 633 of 2009 (Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the decree dated 07/02/2006 in AS No. 163 of 2002 on the file of the Court of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT(FTC) PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE preferred against the decree dated 29/07/2002 in OS No. 10 of 1984 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki) Between: 1 Ravinuthala Suryanarayana ( Died ) 2 Ravinuthala Venkataramanamma W/o. Late Suryanarayana R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 Ravinuthala Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, S/o. LateSuryanarayana, R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Ravinuthala Srinivasa Jayarama Rao, S/o. LateSuryanarayana, R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 5 Ravinuthala Narayana Sarma, S/o. LateSuryanarayana, R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 6 Maddali Varalakshmi, W/o. Varaprasad, R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 7 Pramathumuni Venkata Leelavathi, W/o.Hariprasada Rao, R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 8 Ravinuthala janaki, D/o. LateSuryanarayana, R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 9 Ravinuthala Rajeswari, D/o. LateSuryanarayana, R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Perla Satyanarayana S/o. Mangaiah R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Prakasam District. 2 Ganta Venkateswarlu S/o. Raghavulu R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Prakasam District. 3 kilari Venkaiah S/o. Chimparaiah R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Prakasam District. 4 Yelikam Koteswaramma W/o. Late Venkateswarlu R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Prakasam District. 5 Ramidi Mahalakshmamma W/o. China Subbaiah R/o. Ravinuthala Village, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court Delivered the Following JUDGEMENT:-- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM S.A.No. 633 of 2009 07-08-2009 Oral JUDGMENT: Nothing survives in this second appeal which is misconceived as well. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 07-02-2006 of the learned II-Additional District Judge, Ongole dismissing A.S.No. 163 of 2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29-07-2002 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki in O.S.No.20 of 1984 dismissing the suit, is confirmed. The suit was filed for a declaration that the 1st defendant (since deceased) is not entitled to half the compensation amount in respect of land of an extent of Ac.03-53 cents acquired by the State for providing house sites to the landless poor persons. According to the plaint, the plaintiff’s father Narayana and one Anjaiah are the sons of Jayaramaiah. The plaintiff has three brothers – Sriramulu, Radhakrishna and Jayaramaiah (junior). Anjaiah was given in adoption to one Ravinuthula Venkatappaiah, brother of the senior Jayaramaiah, the grand father of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant Venkateshwarlu is the son of Anjaiah. The plaintiff’s younger brother Jayaramaiah died young, undivided and unmarried. Sriramulu, the elder brother of the plaintiff took some property and relinquished his share under a relinquishment deed dated 01-08-1950. The plaintiff’s father Narayana is claimed to have executed a registered will dated 04-05-1996, bequeathing his 1/4th share to Sriramulu, the plaintiff, Radhakrishna Murthy and Ravinuthala Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, the natural son of the plaintiff. The further case in the plaint is that in 1981, the plaintiff received a notice from the Endowment Department to the effect that the schedule property was held by an institution. He thereupon filed an Inam appeal before the Deputy Tahasildar impleading the 1st defendant- Venkateshwarlu. In the Inam Appeal, the Special Deputy Tahasildar is asserted to have held that patta should be given to the plaintiff and that the 1st defendant is in no way concerned with the property. The 1st defendant is asserted to have failed to appeal and the order has become final. The Government acquired the property and compensation amount of Rs.27,000-00 became payable. This is claimed exclusively by the plaintiff. The 1st defendant allegedly manipulated the revenue documents with the help of Village Officers and lodged an objection and a claim with the revenue authorities, claiming half share in the compensation amount. Thereupon the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer has determined that the 1st defendant is entitled to half the share in the schedule property. Thus the suit. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant it was claimed that the Special Deputy Tahasildar had conducted the enquiry in Inam Appeal No. 9 of 1981 without notice to him. Therefore he filed Inam Appeal No. 10 of 1983 before the R.D.O. wherein the RDO held that the 1st defendant was entitled to an equal share with the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff did not canvass the correctness of the RDO’s order. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was the sole legal representative of the 2nd defendant -- the wife of the 1st defendant, both of whom have died pending the proceedings. The trial Court also held that other legal representatives of the 1st and 2nd defendant are not impleaded in the suit and therefore the plaintiff is disentitled for grant of any relief. The lower appellate Court concurred with the reasoning and conclusions of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The fact of the matter is that the suit by the appellant herein was directed against the 1st defendant seeking a declaration that he is disentitled to half share in the schedule property which was acquired and for which compensation is payable by the State. The appellant herein admitted that the 1st defendant as also his legal representative, his wife died and both these had no issues. In the circumstances the substantive grievance in the suit does not survive. The reasoning of the trial Court and the appellate Court, that the plaintiff has failed to establish exclusive entitlement of the plaintiff to being the legal representative of the 1st and 2nd defendant suffers from no infirmity in the application of law or appreciation of the evidence warranting second appellate interference. There are no merits. The second appeal is therefore dismissed also on the ground that the substantive grievance of the appellant herein as presented in the suit does not survive for adjudication. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 07-08-2009 Pvks