IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD APPEAL SUIT No.656 of 1997 And CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.49541 of 1997 Between: Smt. Landa Appayamma & another .. Appellants AND P. Veerabhadra Swamy & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD APPEAL SUIT No.656 of 1997 And CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.49541 of 1997 COMMON JUDGMENT: Sri M. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant filed a letter into the Registry along with the xerox copy of a Memorandum of Understanding, dated 22.11.2010, and requested that the appeal may be treated as withdrawn. 2. The Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the second appellant and the third respondent during the course of which it was also stated that there was a partition of the properties of the family of the third respondent during the pendency of this appeal under a registered Partition Deed, dated 21.10.2009, out of which the subject matter of the suit/appeal fell to the share of the third respondent. It was further stated that the third respondent was giving up his claim against the second appellant for rent/damages for use and occupation. 3. Sri M. Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel for the cross objectors represented that it was only the third respondent who responded to his communications about the Memorandum of Understanding filed by the learned counsel for the appellants into the Court admitting the same and the other cross objectors did not respond to him in spite of his efforts. While the cross objections relate to the protest by the cross objectors against the finding of the trial Court about the disentitlement to mesne profits in view of the proved landlord and tenant relationship, in the light of the Memorandum of Understanding referring to a registered partition deed among the cross objectors and the subject property falling to the share of the third respondent and in view of the third respondent giving up the claim for any rent/damages for use and occupation, there is no need to decide the cross objections on merits and along with the withdrawn appeal, the cross objections also should be disposed of. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs as withdrawn and the cross objections are dismissed without costs as unnecessary. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 31st January, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD APPEAL SUIT No.656 of 1997 And CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.49541 of 1997 Date: 31st January, 2011 KL