( 1 ) HEARD, Sri Prabhakar, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners/respondent Nos. l to 4/plaintiffs and Sri Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel representing respondents/respondents 5 to 8.

( 2 ) THE question in controversy raised by both the parties in the present civil revision petition is no doubt simple, but, however, the said question is one of general importance. Several factual details had been narrated by both the learned Counsel regarding the historical background of this litigation, prior LGC No. 33 of 1994 and lgc No. 176 of 1995 and the findings recorded therein and even in relation to the identity of the property and the survey numbers in relation to which the findings had been recorded in the aforesaid LGC s, the subject-matter of the present suit and also in reference to Survey No. 310, which is not the subject-matter of the present suit. All the factual details may not be relevant for the present purpose. In IA No. 3603 of 2002 in O. S. Nol224 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, hyderabad, East and North Ranga Reddy district, the following docket order was made:"during the course of arguments both the counsels have ag