M VENKATASWAMY MANDADI Vs. S MUNEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by Defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No. 493/74 on the file of the District Munsif, Srikalahasti. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 5-00 of land, more specifically described in the schedule. The Plaintiff's case before the trial court, was that she purchased the land for valuable consideration. By the side of the scheduled property, defendants 1 to 4 also pruchased Ac. 20-00 of land at the rate of Ac.5-00 each. Though they have no right or title in the land purchased by the Plaintiff, they were attempting to interfere with the same. Defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff. Evidence let in and the suit was dismissed, against which an appeal in A.S.No. 101/85 was preferred by the plaintiff before the Subordinate Judge, Srikalahasthi.

(2.) During the pendency of appeal, defendants 1 and 2 passed away. No application under Order 22, Rule 4 was filed to bring their Legal representatives on record. Lower appellate court heard the plaintiff and the remaining defendants and passed the judgment, allowing the appeal.

(3.) Now it is contended by Sri. P.S. Narayana, learned counsel for the Defendants 3 and 4 that when the appeal was pending before the lower appellate court, Defendants 1 and 2 passed away and their legal representatives were not brought on record and because of failure to bring the legal representatives on record, entire appeal stands abated. To support his contention, he placed reliance on B.S. Singh vs. R.D. Singh, Narayan Bhat vs. Narasimha Sastry and Bibijan vs. Murlidhar.