R Padmanabham vs Jayamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 4035 AP

           THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI


                     Appeal Suit No.1326 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Defendant No.1 against the

decree and judgment, dated 07.09.2017, passed in O.S.No.42 of 2011

on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

2. The suit in O.S.No.42 of 2011 was filed seeking partition of plaint

"A" and "B" schedule properties into 49 equal shares and for allotment

of 17 such shares to the plaintiffs after taking into consideration the

good and bad qualities.

3. By the impugned decree and judgment, the trial Court decreed

the suit and passed a preliminary decree, as prayed for. Hence, this

appeal.

4. This Court, while ordering notice to the respondents granted

interim stay of passing of final decree in O.S.No.42 of 2011, dated

07.09.2017, on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge,

Chittoor, during the pendency of this appeal, vide order, dated,

04.01.2018, passed in A.S.M.P.No.3314 of 2017.

5. The record indicates that respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance

through a counsel. However, neither the name of the learned counsel

is printed in the daily cause list nor there is any representation on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondents 4 to 7 are shown to be

not necessary parties to this appeal.

BSB, J A.S.No.1326 of 2017

6. When the appeal is taken up, learned counsel for the appellant/

defendant No.1 represented that since the matter was settled out of

Court, he may be permitted to withdraw the appeal.

7. Permission is accorded.

8. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 15th July, 2022 RAR