( 1 ) THE appellant herein, Chenna Reddy, the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 60/92 on the file of principal junior Civil Judge, Hindupur and 1 st respondent in A. S. No. 27/99 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, had preferred the present Second Appeal, aggrieved by the reversing Judgment and decree made in a. S. No. 27/99 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Hindupur.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein, Venkat Reddy filed O. S. No. 60/92 on the file of the Principal junior Civil Judge, Hindupur for the relief of permanent injunction relating to the plaint schedule property as against defendants 1 to 3. The 3rd defendant was set ex parte. The appellant 1 st defendant filed written statement and an adoption memo was filed by the 2nd defendant.

( 3 ) ON the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, lssues were settled. In the Court of first instance, on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked. Likewise, on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2, D. W. 1 to D. W. 3 were examined and exs. B-1 to B-8 were marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Court of first instance had dismissed the suit, with costs. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the plaintiff had carried the matter by way of Appeal a. S. No. 27/99 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Hindupur and the appellate Court had allowed the appeal with costs, setting aside the Judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. The 1st defendant/1 st respondent, aggrieved by the same, had preferred the present Second Appeal.

( 4 ) SRI Sridhar Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant had pointed out to substantial questions of law which had been raised in the Second appeal. The learned Counsel also had taken me through the findings recorded by the court of first instance and the findings recorded by the appellate Court. The learned counsel also pointed out that the appellate court had totally erred in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is a stranger and not a member of the family and hence the deceased had no right to Will away the property which had been assigned to him. The learned Counsel also had taken me through the provisions of A. P. Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977, hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the parpose of convenience. The learned counsel also had contended that the expression "family" is not defined under the act and had drawn my attention to the definition of the word "family" in websters Dictionary. While elaborating his submissions, the learned, Counsel aiso had taken me through the evidence of D. W. I and d. W. 2 and had pointed out that Ex. B-1 was proved in accordance with law and the appellate Court had totally ened in reversing the well considered Judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. The learned counsel also contended that the mere mutation in revenue records may not be of any consequence since by virtue of these documents, it cannot be said that the respondent/plaintiff has title to the suit property. Reliance was placed on Nagar palika v. Jagat Singh and Y. Vijayabharathi v. Y. Manikyamma.

( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Prasad, the learned counsel representing the respondent/ appellant/plaintiff made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would maintain that there is no controversy relating to the relationship of the parties. The learned counsel also further submitted that the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff are the family members and also the nature heirs of the deceased in whose favour the land was assigned. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Ex. A-3 and had pointed out to the contention relating to heritabiiity and non-alienability of the property assigned in favour of the deceased. The learned Counsel further contended that though testamentary disposition may be permissible under the Act, such disposition cannot be made in favour of a stranger to the family and