( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 13. 4. 1995 in ata No. 1 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are as under : the father of the petitioners by name koneti Narayana Swamy along with one manikyarayappa was cultivating the lands belonging to Rani Nanjammanni. After the death of Manikyarayappa, the father of the petitioners, Narayana Swamy, continued in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question as the cultivating tenant. While so, the landlady Rani Nanjammanni died and the respondents 3 and 4 herein claiming title to the lands in question under a Will said to have been executed by rani Nanjammanni attempted to interfere with the possession of Narayana Swamy. In the circumstances, he filed O. S. No. 100 of 1979 in the Court of District Munsif, punganur, which was renumbered as O. S. No. 429 of 1979 on the file of the Court of principal District Munsif, Mandanapalle, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondents 3 and 4 from interfering with his possession. Pending the said suit, narayana Swamy, the father of the petitioners, died on 11. 10. 1984 and the petitioners were brought on record as the plaintiffs 2 to 4. After full-fledged trial, o. S. No. 429 of 1979 was decreed as prayed for holding that the father of the petitioners, being the protected tenants have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Against the said judgment and decree the 3rd respondent herein (3rd defendant in O. S. No. 429 of 1979) filed an appeal being A. S. No. 21 of 1989 on the file of the Court of District Judge, madanapalle. The said Appeal was allowed by Judgment dated 7. 4. 1995 holding that the plaintiffs being the cultivating tenants are not entitled to agitate their claim in a civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein filed S. A. No. 313 of 1995 in this Court which was dismissed upholding the view taken by the lower appellate Court.

( 3 ) IT is relevant to note that the third respondent herein claims to have purchased the land in question under a registered Sale Deed dated 17. 12. 1984 during the pendency of O. S. No. 429 of 1979. Alleging that he was attempting to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question, the petitioners filed A. T. C. No. 6 of 1985 on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Principal district Munsif, Punganur under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, to declare them as cultivating tenants and also to declare the sale Deed dated 17. 12. 1984 executed in favour of the respondent No. 3 as null and void and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession. Pending the said proceedings, by order dated 24. 7. 1985 temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners herein. However, ultimately by order dated 28. 7. 1994 ATC. No. 6/1985 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed A. T. A. No. 1 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the additional District Judge, Madanapalle. Though the learned District Judge declined to grant interim stay, by virtue of the order of this Court dated 30. 8. 1994 in W. P. No. 15511 of 1994 status quo was directed to be maintained by both the parties. While so, the 3rd respondent filed LA. No. 24 of 1995 in A. T. A. No. 1 of 1994 with a prayer to dismiss the said appeal as abated contending that one of the land owners by name Merupatla Nanjamma, who was the respondent No. 2 in the Appeal died on 13. 8. 1992 during the pendency of a. T. C. No. 6 of 1985. It was contended that since the petitioners failed to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record within the time, ATA. No. 1 of 1994 stood abated. Though the petitioners herein opposed the said petition, the learned additional District Judge, Madanapalle by order dated 13. 4. 1995 upheld the objection raised by the 3rd respondent and declared that ATC. No. 6 of 1985 stood

Click Here to Read the rest of this document