L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 7 to 11 in O. S. 63 of 2001, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, filed this C. M. A. , aggrieved by the Order, dated 20-7-2004, in I. A. No. 1157 of 2002 filed therein.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 filed the suit for partition, and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Broadly stated, the plaint averments are that their father late trimurthulu, and the fourth respondent (Defendant No. 1) are brothers, and when their father was acting detrimental to their interest, their maternal grandfather got issued a notice in the year 1984, calling upon their father, to partition the suit schedule properties, and that no partition was effected, despite such demand. It was pleaded that, with the issuance of a notice in the year 1984, there was severance of status, and any alienations made, or acts taken by their father and the first defendant, were not binding on them. The suit schedule properties comprise of, mostly agricultural lands, some of which, are said to be in possession of tenants. They also filed i. A. 1157 of 2002, under Order 40, Rule 1 c. P. C. , for appointment of a Receiver. Respondents 5 to 14, and the appellants herein ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document