1. Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy. There is an inter se claim with reference to the entitlement of the petitioners as legal heirs of Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 as brothers of Penta Reddy in the properties in Survey Nos.2 (Ac. 0.28 guntas), 52 (Ac. 2.00 guntas) and 94 (Ac. 2.28 guntas), in all Ac. 5.16 guntas, situated at Thimmapur Revenue Village of Kothur Mandal, Mahaboob nagar District. Respondents 1 to 3 filed an application in Form 3A on 13.11.1990 praying to grant succession in favour of them along with three sons of Penta Reddy since the above said lands are ancestral properties. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur Mandal, Mahaboob nagar District (5th respondent) issued notice on 26.11.1990 calling for objections. Since Penta Reddy died in the year 1983, the petitioners herein as legal heirs of Penta Reddy contested the claim of respondents 1 to 3 herein by filing their objections.

2. According to the applicants before the Mandal Revenue Officer, the above said lands in addition to other lands were originally acquired by Late Sri Chenna Reddy, who is grand father of Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 herein. The said properties were succeeded by Sri Kista Reddy and that being a joint family property, respondents 1 to 3 herein are also entitled to equal share along with Penta Reddy and, therefore, they are entitled to mutate their names in the revenue records. In support of their contention that the said property is a joint family property and, therefore, they are entitled to a share, the applicants therein have also relied upon the declaration given by Penta Reddy in the year 1976 under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1971, declaring the said land as belonging to joint family. A similar declaration was also given by the applicants. The applicants disputed the stand of the petitioners herein that the said property is the self-acquired property of Penta Reddy; that an oral partition took place among the family members and in the said oral partition, the subject lands were excluded from the partition as there was a clear understanding that the subject land belongs to Penta Reddy and not joint family property.

3. Having considered the rival contentions and on verification of revenue records, the Mandal Revenue Officer vide his orders, dated 15.03.1991, held that in view of the declaration given by the petitioners as well as the applicants claiming that the subject lands as belonging to joint family property and as the objectors failed to bring on record any evidence to show that it is a self-acquired property of Penta Reddy, the claim of the applicants was valid. The Mandal Revenue Officer also held that the objectors themselves have admitted the subject property as joint family lands and the above lands were partitioned among them i.e., between the successors of Penta Reddy and the applicants and having peaceful possession of the lands till date. The Mandal Revenue Officer also noticed, from the revenue records, that from the year 1982-83 onwards, the names of the applicants were also reflected in the revenue records and the name of Kista Reddy was recorded as cultivator on all extents of lands, which are even otherwise claimed as joint family properties till his death since he was the kartha of the family and not because the said land was acquired by him. The Mandal Revenue Officer also rejected the contention of the objectors that there is serious dispute with reference to succession and the revenue Court has no power and jurisdiction to adjudicate succession claim by relying on the provision contained in Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1989’). Accordingly, the names of the applicants therein were reflected in the revenue records.

4. The petitioners herein filed revision before the Joint Collector, Mahaboob nagar District,