APHC010180742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9287/2025 Between: K Syamalamma The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen, and that Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are the relatives of the petitioner’s daughter husband has passed away, of the petitioner’s daughter daughter-in-law have obtained a divorce in the U.S.A. and have been living separately in the U.S.A. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9287/2025 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen, and that Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are the relatives of the petitioner’s daughter-in-law. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s husband has passed away, and that Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are the relatives of the petitioner’s daughter-in-law. Additionally, the petitioner’s son and law have obtained a divorce in the U.S.A. and have been living IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen, and that Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are the relatives law. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s and that Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are the relatives law. Additionally, the petitioner’s son and law have obtained a divorce in the U.S.A. and have been living 2 2. However, it is alleged that the petitioner’s husband, while he was on ventilator support, executed a will in favor of the petitioner’s granddaughter. O.S. No. 67 of 2018, filed by the daughter of Respondent No. 6 herein against the petitioner and another, was dismissed by the V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 150 of 2020 against Respondent No. 6 herein and another, which was decreed. However, unmindful of the decree granted by the Court, Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are continuing to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of certain properties. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation to Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, but no action has been taken on their part. 3. Considering the submissions, there shall be a direction to Respondent No. 4 to ensure that the decree passed by the competent Civil Court is complied with in letter and spirit. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 09.04.2025 Note: Issue C.C by 10.04.2025 B/o PNS 3