C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 158 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Additional senior Civil Judge. Ongole, are the appellants. Appellants and A. Venkata durgamba (hereinafter referred to as 3rd plaintiff) have filed the aforesaid O. S. No. 158 of 1992 against respondents and five others for (i) a declaration that they (appellants) are the absolute owners of Ac. 5. 73 cents in s. No. 55/6 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram village within the boundaries mentioned in item No. 1 of plaint schedule, and that 3rd plaintiff is the absolute owner of Ac. 1. 99 cents of land in S. No. 55/6 of Rajupalem lakshmipuram village within the boundaries mentioned in item No. 2 of the plaint schedule; (ii) for a consequential permanent injunction restraining them Venkateswarlu died unmarried and intestate. Srinivasa Rao died leaving behind his wife Vaidehi as his legal heir. Satyanarayana died leaving behind his wife adilakshmi and daughter Sukumari as his legal heirs. A. Venkata Ramanaiah, who is the son of 3rd plaintiff, is the General Power of Attorney of his mother 3rd plaintiff, vaidehi, Adilakshmi and Sukumari. Since mallaiah did not want a share, his sons purushottam and Krishnaiah divided those properties equally under a registered family settlement-cum-partition deed dated 19-11-1919. Subsequently, Ramaswamy sarma s/o. Purushottam filed O. S. No. 183 of 1932 for partition of his share in the family property against his father, uncle Krishnaiah and others, in which a compromise decree was passed on 17-12-1937. Under the said partition Purushottam s branch and krishnaiah s branch got Ac. 112. 50 cents each and Guda family got Ac. 75. 00 cents. As per the revenue records the extent of S. No. 55 is ac. 300. 00 cents; out of which Ac. 2. 23 cents in S. No. 55/3-B was set apart for nagarjunasagar Canal; Ac. 18. 90 cents in s. No. 55/3-A and Ac. 47. 64 cents in s. No. 55/3-C was surrendered by Lakshmi narasamma w/o. Ramaswamy Sarma under Land Ceiling Act. Ac. 37. 70 cents in s. No. 55/4 and Ac. 86. 50 cents in S. No. 55/5 was surrendered under the Land Ceiling act by Guda family. Government acquired ac. 193. 14 cents for Cattle breeding Centre. Thus only Ac. 1-00 cents in S. No. 55/1, ac. 6. 00 cents in S. No. 55/2, Ac. 53. 96 cents in S. No. 55/4-B and Ac. 45. 90 cents in s. No. 55/6 remained as per the revenue records. Guda family has no land in S. No. 55. Yet respondents 3 and 4 filed a collusive suit in O. S. No. 84 of 1992 seeking injunction against 1st respondent from interfering with their possession over the suit property. A. Venkata Ramanaiah as general power of attorney of 3rd plaintiff, Vaidehi, respondents 6 to 8 (defendants 10 to 12) from granting mining lease and other allied licences to respondents 1 to 5 and defendants 6 to 9 in respect of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule; (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 5 to 9 from carrying on mining operations in item No. 2 of the plaint schedule till Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule is sub-divided; (iv) for a permanent injunction restraining respondents 6 to 8 from granting transport and other licences to 9th defendant in respect of Ac. 35. 90 cents in S. No. 55/6 till item No. 2 of the plaint schedule is subdivided and (v) for a permanent injunction restraining respondents 9 and 10 i. e. , defendants 13 and 14 from granting a no objection certificate to the second respondent in respect of item No. 1 of the plaint schedule. Subsequently, on the basis of a memo filed on behalf of the appellants and 3rd plaintiff that the claim with regard to item No. 2 of the plaint schedule was adjusted out of Court, the suit in respect of item No. 2 of the plaint schedule filed by 3rd plaintiff against defendants 5 to 9 was dismissed on 24-1-1996. Therefore the suit claim remained confined to appellants and respondents in relation to item No. l of the plaint schedule, which would hereinafter be referred to as the suit property.

( 2 ) THE averments, in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document