Defendants 7 to 9 in O.S.No.66/82 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment made therein preferred A.S.No.335/97. Likewise, the unsuccessful 2nd defendant being aggrieved of the said Decree and Judgment preferred A.S.No.371/97. The appellant/2 defendant in A.S.No.371/97 was shown as 4 respondent in A.S.No.335/97.Respondents 4, 5 and 6 in A.S.No.335/97 died and the legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 12 to respondents 22 by virtue of an order dated 1-10-2007 made in A.S.M.P.Nos.930, 2055 and 2053/2007. The legal representatives of the deceased 4th respondent were shown as respondents 21 and 22 and the legal representatives of the 6 respondent were shown as respondents 15 to 20. Likewise, the legal representatives of the 5th respondent were shown as respondents 12 to 14.

2. In A.S.M.P.No.1950/2007 in A.S.No.335/97, partial compromise was recorded on 2-11-2007 as hereunder:-

'The 1 appellant and the respondents 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 13 to 22 are present.Learned Counsel Smt.G.Sabitha, on special vakalat for R-12, learned Counsel Sri D.Venkata Reddy for the 1 appellant, learned Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy for respondents 1 and 2, learned Counsel Sri K.Basavayya, for R-15 to 20, learned Counsel Smt.Sabitha, for R-1 0 to R-14 and R-21 and R-22 are present and identified the parties.

Sri C.Ramesh, learned Counsel for the appellants 2 and 3 who are arrayed as respondents 23 and 24 in the compromise petition.

The 1 appellant and the respondents 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 13 to 22 and Special Vakalat Holder Smt.Sabitha, advocate, are present. The terms of compromise are read over and explained to all the parties who admitted them to be true and correct.

In the light of the fact that the appellants 2 and 3, who are arrayed as R-23 and R-24, did not agree for the said compromise, necessarily, the said compromise would be subject to the result of the appeal, lest unnecessary complication would arise. The compromise would be recorded subject to the result of the appeal.

Therefore, post the main appeal for hearing on 23-11-2007."

In the light of the same, inasmuch as the legal representatives of the appellant in A.S.No.371/97, shown as 4th respondent in A.S.No.335/97 and the legal representatives shown as respondents 21 and 22 having entered into compromise as already specified supra, no further orders need be passed in A.S.No.371/97 and accordingly the Appeal A.S.No.371/97 is hereby closed. As far as A.S.No.335/95 is concerned, the 1 appellant/7 defendant entered into compromise and the parties unwilling to enter into compromise are the rest of the appellants/appellants 2 and 3/defendants 8 and 9 respectively, the said Appeal, in the light of the aforesaid facts, to be decided on merits since the appellants 2 and 3 who were shown as respondents 23 and 24 in A.S.M.P.No.1950/2007 did not agree for the compromise and specifically an order was made on 2-11-2007 that necessarily the said compromise would be subject to the result of the Appeal, lest unnecessary complication would arise and that the terms recorded would be subject to the result of the Appeal, it is needless to say that the said compromise would be binding and operative between the parties, no doubt subject to the result of the appeal A.S.No.335/97.

3. Heard Sri Ramesh Sagar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants 2 and 3 in A.S.No.335/97 and Sri P.Venkata Reddy, representing 1 appellant and Sri P.Veera Reddy, Counsel representing the contesting respondents/plaintiffs.

4. Submissions of Sri Ramesh Sagar: Sri Ramesh Sagar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants 2 and 3/ defendants 8 and 9 made the following submissions:

5. The learned Counsel would maintain that the trial Court did not appreciate the entire evidence available on record properly.The learned Counsel also would maintain that late Mohd.Khasim Sahab virtually gifted Items 1, 3, 11, 15, 16 and 20 of A Schedule in favour of the appellants and had put the