P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) A novel, but an interesting question arises for consideration in this appeal, in view of the peculiar facts of the case.

( 2 ) THE legal representative of the 1st appellant who was brought on record in this appeal, who ought to have been added as a party to the suit being a necessary party but had not been added as a party, raised an objection relating to the validity and the binding nature of the judgment and decree so far as it relates to the plaint A Schedule property is concerned made in OS No. 52/82 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram.

( 3 ) THE 1st respondent in the present appeal is the plaintiff in OS No. 52/82 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram and the 1st defendant in the suit one Smt. Datla Chandraiah who had preferred the present appeal died pending appeal and her daughter Kalidindi Venkata Subbamma was brought on record as appellant No. 2 as legal representative of the deceased appellant No. l by an order dated 10-10-1995 in CMP No. 13437/95. CRP No. 1685/2002 also was filed by the same appellant, aggrieved by the passing of final decree for division of properties made in IA No. 1992/99 in OSNo. 52/82 on the file of Senior Ci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document