JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 07.04.2011 in A.S.No.18 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Khammam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007, passed in O.S.No.345 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

4. The appellant is defendant No.3 in the suit and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff, who is the son of 3rd respondent. Appellant and 3rd respondent are the brother and son of the 2nd respondent respectively. Initially, the plaintiff filed a pauper O.P. vide O.P.No.47 of 1992 and basing on the orders of the Court, plaint was instituted on 29.07.1991 and subsequently it was numbered as O.S.No.31 of 1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is with respect to four properties i.e. A, B, C & D schedule properties for partition into six equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and put him into possession. It is relevant to mention that ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties are situated at Tenali and ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties are situated at Virivindi village of Khammam District. The Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, after considering the pleadings of both the parties, framed issues as under :

“1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try suit over the suit schedule properties C and D which are situated at Virivindi village of Burgampahad Mandal of Khammam District ?

2. Whether Virivindi village in Burgampahad Mandal of Khammam District is notified as scheduled area ?

3. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction either territorial or pecuniary to entertain the suit ?”

5. After considering the entire material on record, the trial Court gave a finding that the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Tenali has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the Government has declared Burgampahad Mandal as a “Scheduled Area” vide Notification issued in the official gazette in G.O.Ms.No.198, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 20.04.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.1573, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 30.07.1972, and as such, the Civil Court cannot entertain the suit as the schedule property is situated in Scheduled Area, and accordingly, returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC on 02.11.2005, for presenting it before proper Court.

6. The plaintiff again re-presented the plaint before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and the suit was numbered as O.S.No.345 of 2005. Later, the plaintiff gave up his claim against respondent Nos.4 to 23 as ‘not pressed’ and also did not claim his share with respect to ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.

7. The trial Court decreed the suit in terms of compromise, however, the appellant herein was not a party to the compromise, as he was set ex parte in the suit.

8. It is relevant to mention that the trial Court has not decided the question “Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit as some of the suit schedule properties are situated in the Scheduled Area”, but passed the decree as the parties have arrived at a compromise. Being aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the compromise, the appellant/3rd defendant filed an appeal vide A.S.No.18 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Khammam.

9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the 3rd defendant was set ex parte and when the appellant was about to file a petition to set aside the said ex parte orders, it has come to his knowledge that an interlocutory application i.e. I.A.No.2049 of 2007 was filed to advance the suit, in order to record the compromise, which was allowed by the trial Court and compromise was recorded behind his back. It is further contended that even the first appellate Court, without considering the fa