S.V. Bhatt, J.

1. Heard Mr. Laxmikantha Rao for petitioner and Mr. Srinivas Rao for 3rd respondent. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No. 27 of 2007. The suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 31.3.2005 said to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2 in OS No. 27 of 2007. The 1st defendant died in the year 2007 and the 2nd defendant in January, 2016.

2. The Counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 2 in the Court below, filed Memo informing the demise of defendants 1 and 2 and also that the defendants died issueless. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed IA No. 248 of 2016 under Order 22 Rule 4-A C.P.C. to appoint Administrative General or an Officer of Court to represent the estate of defendants 1 and 2, for the cause of action subsists. Respondents 3 to 5 herein opposed appointment of either Administrative General or an Officer of the Court to represent the estate of deceased defendants 1 and 2. One of the objections, which has bearing for disposing of either IA No. 248 of 2016 or the present civil revision petition is that one Aruna wife of Rallabandi Raji Reddy-3rd defendant is the adopted daughter of deceased defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, it is the case that defendants 1 and 2 died issueless but not without a legal representative, who can represent the estate of deceased defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The learned Trial Judge accepted the objection raised by defendants 3 to 5 and dismissed the application by recording the following findings:

"As per Order 22 Rule 4-A CPC, the Court can appoint Administrative General or officer of Court to represent the estate of deceased person in a case where the deceased persons are not having any legal heirs or legal representatives. In the instant case admittedly the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not having issues. But, the respondent No. 3 contended that his wife is adopted daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. So that she should be given notice to prove whether she is adopted daughter or not, thereafter as rightly contended by Counsel for respondent as per Hindu Succession Act there are three types of Class-I, Class-II and Class-III legal heirs. When there are no legal heirs under Class-I to Class-III and the petitioners are orphans, if nobody is there on their behalf then only the Administrative General can be appointed. It is not the case of the petitioners that whether the deceased persons are not having Class-II or Class-III legal heirs. It is for the petitioner to establish that there are no legal heirs of Class-I to Class-III. Simply as they have no issues on this ground he cannot ask the Court to appoint Administrative General. The plaintiff who has filed the suit it is his headache to bring the LR's on record, he cannot directly ask the Court to appoint any other person to represent the estate of deceased. Hence, there is no merit in this case. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed."

3. Hence, the civil revision petition.

4. Mr. Laxmikantha Rao contends that the suit is for specific performance and the cause of action subsist inspite of demise of defendants 1 and 2 and the effort of plaintiff is to ensure representation of the estate of deceased by legal representative and in the absence of legal representative by the administrator or officer under Rule 4-A of CPC, because the suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale, wherein obligations on deceased defendants 1 and 2 are considered by the trial Court. According to him, Rule 4-A enables the Court to appoint Administrator-General or an Officer of Court to represent the estate of deceased, as in the case on hand the defendants 1 and 2 died issueless. In other words he contends that D1 and D2 died issueless and requirement for appointing Administrator-General or Officer of Court is satisfied. Even assuming that defendants 3 to 5 have acquired right in the property, the right acquired is subject to the primary obligation of defendants 1 and 2 to discharge the obligation under the suit