IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH (28th) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2966 of 2003 Between: Dhulipalla Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And: Munigoti Koteswara Rao & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2966 of 2003 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the decree and judgment dated 08.07.2002 in ATA No.6 of 1996 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Principal District Judge), Ongole, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed confirming the order dated 26.02.1996 passed in ATC No.27 of 1984 on the file of the Special Officer cum Principal District Munsif, Addanki. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed ATC No.27 of 1984 under Section 16 of the A.P. Tenancy Act 1956 for declaration that he is the cultivating tenant of the petition schedule land of Ac.6.32 cents and for declaration that the sale deed dated 05.04.1984 executed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein in favour of the respondents 6 and 7 are not valid and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents form interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 are brothers and respondents 3 to 5 are their sisters. It is not disputed that the schedule land originally belongs to one Munugoti Bhadrachalam and after his death interstate on 02.02.1979, the schedule land devolved on the respondents 1 to 5. According to the petitioner, his father Nagaiah was the original tenant, having taken the land on lease from M. Bhadrachalam and after the death of his father, the petitioner has been cultivating the same as a lessee by paying the agreed rent of Rs.200/- per acre. The petitioner alleges that the respondents 1 to 5 hatched up a plan and in collusion with respondents 6 to 7 without the knowledge of the petitioner. The respondents filed counter contesting the tenancy application. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked on behalf of the respondents. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Officer, by order dated 26.02.1996 allowed the application in part, declaring the petitioner as a cultivating tenant in respect of an extent of Ac.4.76 cents and also declared that the sale deed dated 05.04.1984 in respect of the said extent alone is not valid and binding on the petitioner and also granted consequential injunction in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has been cultivating tenant in respect of the entire schedule land of Ac.6.32 cents. Aggrieved by the said order of the Special Officer, he preferred appeal in ATA No.6 of 1996. Aggrieved by the same order, the respondents also filed appeal ATA No.10 of 1996. By common judgment dated 08.07.2002, the Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. 6. The impugned judgment would show that during the pendency of the ATC itself, the first respondent died and his legal representatives were not brought on record. It is stated that under partition deed Ex.B.3, the 2nd respondent and his father allotted Ac.4.76 cents and the remaining land was allotted to the first respondent. In respect of an extent of Ac.4.76 cents pertaining to the share of 2nd respondent, the Special Officer allowed the application and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority also. The dispute in the present revision relates to remaining extent of Ac.1.56 cents, which was allotted to the share of first respondent. 7. As the legal representatives of first respondent were not brought on record, the proceedings insofar as first respondent are concerned have abated. The learned Appellate Authority therefore held that since the claim of petitioner has abated as against first respondent, he is not entitled for the relief in respect of the extent pertaining to the first respondent, even though the petitioner was able to establish that he was cultivating tenant of the said land also and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in respect of the remaining extent. As the legal representatives of the first respondent are not impleaded and the proceedings against him have abated, the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal insofar as it relates to the remaining extent pertaining to the share of first respondent, does not call for any interference, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 28.12.2011 bss