APHC010047322021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 IN/AND A.S.NO.67 /2021 Between: 1. Ala Veeramma, (Died) per LR.No.4, W/o Katamaraju, D/o Yadala Kotaiah, Hindu, Aged about 85 years, House Wife R/O.D. No.11- 143/1, ChallavariPalem, Guntur Rural, Guntur 2. Tuluchuri Manikyamma,, W/o Seshaiah, D/o Yadala Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about 83 years, house wife, R/o Door No.11-143/1, Challavaripalem, Guntur Rural, Guntur 3. Katteboina Bhulakshmi,, W/o Rama Rao, D/o Yadala Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about. 80 years, House wife, resident of Yatraguntapadu village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District 4. Dokku Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 44 years, R/o. 11-626/3, 3rd lane, Annapurna Nagar, West Side, Nagarlu, Gorantal of Gontur, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant No.4 impleaded as LR of deceased appellant No.1 vide Court Order dated 01.08.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.67 of 2021. 2 ...Petitioners AND 1. Yadala Pitchaiah, S/o Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about 73 years, Retired SBI Bark Manager, Resident of Mayabazaar, Kalyanamandapam street, Bapatla, Guntur District 2. Yadala Atchamma, W/o late Nagaiah, Hindu, aged about 74 years, House wife resident of Door No.11-143, Challavaripalem Guntur Rural. Guntur 3. Yadala Sivaiah, S/o late Nagaiah, Hindu aged about 44 years, Agriculturist, Resident of Door No.11-143, Challavaripalem, Guntur Rural, Guntur 4. Angirekula Siva Parvathi, W/o Narasimha Rao, D/o late Nagaiah, Hindu, aged about 49 years, Agriculturist, resident of door no.12/73, Ponnekallu village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District 5. Maddula Rajeswari, W/O Sivaiah, D/o late Nagalah, Hindu, aged about 15 years, Agriculturist, Resident of Gorlavaripalem village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: VENKATESH KOSARAJU Counsel for the Respondents: N SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:B PARAMESEWARA RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) 3 The 2nd appellant namely, Ms.Tuluchuri Manikyamma, the 3rd appellant namely, Katteboina Bhulakshmi and the 4th appellant namely, Dokku Venkata Satyanarayana Raju are present in-person and have been identified by Sri Venkatesh Kosaraju, their counsel. 2. On 20.08.2025, we passed the following order: “I.A.No.2 of 2025 has been filed seeking a decree in terms of the compromise said to have been entered into between the appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is brought to the notice of the Court that respondent No.2 has died. 2. Sri N.Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that his client is not a party to the compromise and opposes the same. 3. Sri Venkatesh Kosaraju, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants are not pressing I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed for recording of compromise and, instead, intend to withdraw the appeal. 4. Sri B.Parameswararao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5, submits that he has no objection for the same. 5. In view of the above, the appellants shall file an appropriate application to that effect. 6. Post the matter after two (02) weeks.” 3. I.A.No.2 of 2025 was filed seeking decree in terms of the compromise. The said compromise was between the appellants and the respondents 3 to 5. The 2nd respondent died. The 1st respondent is not party to that compromise. 4. Subsequently, I.A.No.3 of 2025 was filed by the appellants to withdraw the appeal itself. 4 5. In consideration of the aforesaid applications, on 03.09.2025, we passed the following order: “The partition suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the defendants/ respondents was dismissed, against which, the present appeal was filed. 2.From perusal of the judgment, it is evident that the property in suit belonged to Sri Yadala Kotaiah, who is father of the plaintiffs as also the respondents being the sons and daughters. On the death of some of the parties on either side, their legal representatives were brought on record. The finding has also been recorded that the property is his self acquired property and not the ancestral property and Yadala Kotaiah died intestate. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the dismissal of the suit was as there was an oral partition between the father and the sons. 4. Initially the application was filed to record the compromise with the terms and conditions as mentioned in the application between the appellants and the respondents 3 to 5. The application was filed on 01.07.2025. Fresh vakalat for the appellants was also filed on 01.07.2025 as disclosed by the present counsel for the appellants, who submitted on 20.08.2025 that the appellants do not wish to press the application for compromise, instead they wish to withdraw the appeal. 5. I.A.No.3 of 2025 has been filed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. 6. After going through the application, I.A.No.3 of 2025 for withdrawal filed by the appellants to withdraw the appeal, as also the previously filed application to record the compromise amongst the appellants and the respondents 3 to 5, I.A.No.2 of 2025, we feel that before passing any order in the applications, let all the parties appear before this Court except the 1st respondent as learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent is completely bedridden, however liberty to appear through virtual mode is granted to the 1st respondent. 5 7. Learned counsel for the appellants as also the respondents submit that they would also obtain complete instructions and pray for a next date. 8. List on 10.09.2025.” 9. As aforesaid, the appellants are present. 10. The 3rd respondent namely, Yadala Sivaiah, 4th respondent namely, Sri Angirekula Siva Paravathi and the 5th respondent namely, Maddula Rajeswari are also present and have been identified by their counsel, Sri B.Parameswara Rao. 11. It is further submitted by Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, that three demand drafts bearing Nos.688299, 688300, 688301, dated 09.09.2025 drawn in favour of each appellants 2, 3 and 4 for the amount of Rs.9,66,666/- respectively have been prepared and the said respondents are ready to handover the same to the said appellants. 12. Sri N.Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent is not a party to the compromise. 13. We are of the view that the appeal deserves to be decided in terms of the compromise between the appellants 2, 3 and 4 on the one hand and the respondents 3, 4 and 5 on the other. 6 14. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is allowed in the aforesaid terms between the appellants 2, 3 and 4 and the respondents 3, 4 and 5. 15. So far as the 1st respondent is concerned, the appeal survives but now, we proceed to consider the application for withdrawal of the appeal i.e. I.A.No.3 of 2025. 16. Consequently, I.A.No.3 of 2025 is also allowed and the appeal is dismissed against the 1st respondent, as withdrawn. 17. Let the parties appear before the Registrar Judicial today itself and shall deposit demand drafts with him, who shall in turn handover the same to the said appellants after taking due acknowledgement. 18. The I.A.No.2 of 2025 with affidavit and joint memo and the due acknowledgement in terms of para 17(supra) shall form part of the decree in this appeal. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J 7 ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 10.09.2025 Pab 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 IN/AND A.S.NO.67 /2021 Date:- 10.09.2025 Pab 9