MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER Vs. SHAIK VALIAS BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners. Respondents 1 and 2 are mother and daughter respectively. The first respondent died in the year 1994 leaving behind the second respondent, as legal heir. Learned Government Pleader filed memo in USR. No. 697 on 30.04.2008 stating that the notice to R1 could not be served on account of her death in the year 1994 but her daughter, second respondent, is already on record. Apart from RPAD having been served on R2, another memo in USR. No. 610 of 2007 is also filed showing the proof of service of personal notice on R2. Thus, second respondent effectively represents the respondents. However, nobody appears on behalf of second respondent. It appears that the suit, being O.S. No. 161 of 1988, was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs before the trial Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) It would be noticed that there is no relief with regard to declaration of title nor any consequential relief prayed for by the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property is described as Ac. 5.00 guntas of land out of Sy. No. 609 at Yellandu village but the valuation of the suit was made at Rs. 5,000/- and the Court fee of Rs. 300/- was paid. Moreover, the petitioners/defendants were set ex parte and the suit was decreed under judgment and decree dated 08.02.1993, as prayed for, as per the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Yellandu and the text of the judgment reads as under:

(3.) Petitioners/Defendants, thereafter, filed the present application, being I.A. No. 284 of 1998, seeking condonation of delay of 2069 days along with an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by the Court below under the impugned order dated 03.07.2000, which is challenged in this revision.