DACHEPALLI PRATHAP REDDY Vs. VANGALA BHOOM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Laxmikantha Rao for petitioner and Mr. Srinivas Rao for 3rd respondent.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 27 of 2007. The suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 31.03.2005 said to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 27 of 2007. The 1st defendant died in the year 2007 and the 2nd defendant in January 2016.

(3.) The counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 2 in the Court below, filed Memo informing the demise of defendants 1 and 2 and also that the defendants died issueless. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed I.A.No. 248 of 2016 under Order 22 Rule 4-A C.P.C. to appoint Administrative General or an officer of Court to represent the estate of defendants 1 and 2, for the cause of action subsists. Respondents 3 to 5 herein opposed appointment of either Administrative General or an officer of the Court to represent the estate of deceased defendants 1 and 2. One of the objections, which has bearing for disposing of either I.A.No. 248 of 2016 or the present Civil Revision Petition is that one Aruna wife of Rallabandi Raji Reddy-3rd defendant is the adopted daughter of deceased defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, it is the case that defendants 1 and 2 died issueless but not without a legal representative, who can represent the estate of deceased defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The learned trial Judge accepted the objection raised by defendants 3 to 5 and dismissed the application by recording the following findings :-