IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS 1st day of April, 2011 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY S.A.No. 1654 of 2005 Between: Rachapudi Venkata Sitaramanjaneyulu (died Per LRS Appellants and Rachapudi Naga Sai Kumar Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY S.A.No. 1654 of 2005 Judgment: This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada in A.S.No. 25 of 2002 dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff by confirming the dismissal of O.S.No. 680 of 1996 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. For the sake of convenience the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The plaintiff, who is the father of the defendant, filed the suit, against his son for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, alleging that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bequeathed by his mother Venkata Seetharavamma under Will dated:31-5-1982. The defendant, who is the elder son of the plaintiff, contested the suit denying the Will executed by his grand mother stating that out of love and affection towards him, as he is the eldest grand son, got vacated the tenants from the suit schedule property and inducted him into possession of the suit schedule property in 1989, in which year the marriage of the defendant was performed. It is his further case that though Seetharavamma executed registered Will on 31-5-1982 bequeathing the properties to her other sons, including the plaintiff, she executed her last Will on 21-3-1993, bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendant, while confirming the Will dated:31-5-1982 in all aspects. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit observing “though the title of the defendant under Ex B-1 is defective, the title of the plaintiff under Ex A-2 cannot be declared and consequently he is not entitled to recover the possession of the suit property”. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal - A.S.No. 25 of 2002 before the learned VIII Additional District (FTC) Vijayawada, which was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Against the aforesaid concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiff filed the present second appeal before this court. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that as the plaintiff died during the pendency of the second appeal, S.A.M.P.No. 172 of 2006 was filed by the wife, daughter and other sons of the plaintiff to bring them on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, since the plaint schedule property devolved on them on the death of their late father and to permit them to prosecute the appeal further. 5, Admittedly, the defendant herein is also one of the legal heirs of the deceased – plaintiff, who succeeded to the plaint schedule property along with the petitioners in S.A.M.P.No. 172 of 2006, on the death of the plaintiff. Therefore entire cause of action of the appeal changes and the appellants have no independent right in the property to agitate against the defendant, who is also one of their coparcener. They have to agitate their claims in an independent proceeding; but cannot continue present the appeal, against the one of the legal heirs of the demised plaintiff. 6. In that view of the matter the second appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs. The petitioners in S.A.M.P.No. 172 of 2006, including the respondent herein are granted permission to seek their remedy in appropriate proceedings. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. April 1, 2011. *BVS 35 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY S.A.No. 1654 of 2005 01-04-2011