1. I.A.No.2 of 2018 was filed in this revision seeking permission to allow petitioner 3, defendant 13 in the suit, to appear and act on behalf of her son, petitioner 2, defendant 1 in the suit, who is stated to be residing in the United States of America. In the light of the averments made in the supporting affidavit and the general power of attorney dated 28.04.2010, placed on record, the I.A. is ordered and petitioner 3 is permitted to represent petitioner 2.

2. This civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC arises out of the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in I.A.No.1927 of 2014 in O.S.No.107 of 2011. The petitioners are defendants 3, 1 and 13 respectively in the said suit and they filed the subject I.A. under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC praying that the trial Court take up Issue No.4 framed in the suit as a preliminary issue and decide the same. By the order dated 11.12.2017, the trial Court held against them and dismissed the I.A.

3. By order dated 16.02.2018, this Court, having noted that the order under revision reflected that the trial Court was guided by one stray entry in the pahani for the year 1954-55, observed that the question as to whether the preliminary issue should have been decided required examination and granted interim stay of further proceedings in the suit.

4. Heard Sri K. Bikshapathy, learned counsel representing Sri D.Sudershan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 3, 1 and 13, and Sri P.Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondents 11 to 13/plaintiffs 2 to 4. Respondent 1/plaintiff 1 is deceased, as per the cause title, and respondents 2 to 10 are shown as not necessary parties to this revision.

5. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

6. O.S.No.107 of 2011 was filed for the following reliefs:

‘1. ….a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs.no.2 to 4 are being legal heirs of plaintiff no.1 i.e., Late M. Shyam Sunder and defendant no.1 to 3 are having 50% share, equally amount themselves, in respect of the suit schedule property and defendants no.4 to 12 shall not have any right for partition and separate possession in respect of the said property.

2. Final decree be passed in pursuance of preliminary decree by dividing the suit schedule property into 2 shares by meets and bounds taking the value of the property into consideration and deliver the plaintiffs no.2 to 4 being legal heirs of plaintiff no.1 i.e., late M. Shyam sunder their respective share and keep them in separate possession thereof.

3. To grant perpetual injunction restraining all the defendants from alienating, encumbering, inducing third parties changing the nature of suit schedule properties in any manner whatsoever. 4. Costs of the suit be awarded.

5. Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled may be passed as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.’

7. The suit schedule property is agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.14 gts. in Sy.No.37; Ac.1.12 gts. in Sy.No.38; and Ac.3.07 gts. in Sy.No.39, totally admeasuring Ac.5.33 gts., situated at Pet-Basheerbagh Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

8. The plaint averments are to the effect that M.Jairam Rao, the father of deceased plaintiff 1, and one M.Venkateswara Rao were the joint owners of the suit schedule property, as evidenced by the revenue record of 1954-55. Mandal Laxmaiah, the common ancestor of defendants 4 to 12, was the protected tenant in the suit schedule property. Venkateswara Rao sold his undivided share in the suit schedule property to P.Madan Mohan under Registered Document No.3135 of 1964 dated 02.11.1964. When the revenue authorities issued a notice calling for objections when they proposed to carry out mutation in the revenue records pursuant to the said sale, Mandal Yellaiah and Mandal Yettaiah, the legal representatives of the protected tenant, Mand