THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No. 947 OF 2008 DT.27.1.2010 Between: Dakarapu Nookalu and others … Petitioner And Dakarapu Suryanarayana and another … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar Counsel for respondent nos: None The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No. 947 of 2008 ORDER: The appellants herein are plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 907 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Visakapatnam for declaration that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for recovery of the possession of the same and future profits to be enquired into and for costs of the suit. The first plaintiff is the father and the second plaintiff is wife and third plaintiff is his son born through second plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 are sons of first plaintiff through his first wife. Admittedly the suit schedule property is assigned land granted in favour of first plaintiff. The appellants herein/plaintiffs are claiming the possession on the basis of Ex.A-4, a will. Whereas, it is the case of the respondents/defendants that they being legal heirs of the original assignee, they have succeeded to the assigned land and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The assigned lands are not alienable but inheritable, therefore suit filed based on alienation through Ex.A-4 will, is hit by the provisions of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, therefore the Court below, has rightly dismissed the suit, against which an appeal has been filed and the lower Appellate Court, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 31.3.2008. In view of the provisions of Act, 1977, the assigned lands are not alienable and are only inheritable, as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have acquired any right or title pursuant to alienation of deed under Ex.A-4-will. In view of the above, I do not see any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the second appeal fails and dismissed. However, it is always open for the plaintiffs 2 and 3/appellants herein to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum to establish that they are legal heirs of first plaintiff and entitlement for share in the estate of first plaintiff. No Costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 27.1.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 947 OF 2008 DATE: 27.1.2011