- (1.) Substitution is allowed if not allowed by previous order.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 6, 1985 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 70/1979. The defendants 2 to 7 in the partition suit No. O.S. 70 of 1970 are the appellants before us. The respondent No. 1 filed the said O.S. 70/1970 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Tanuku for partition of B and C Schedule properties, inter alia, contending that she had inherited the share in the said B and C Schedule properties through Karunamma who was the daughter of Mark, the admitted owner of the property. The said respondent No. 1 also claimed title to the said property under a Will executed by her mother Karunamma. The contesting defendants 2 to 7 who are appellants before this Court, filed a written statement, inter alia, disputing the claim of the plaintiff. It was inter alia contended by the said contesting defendants that the Will executed by Karunamma was not a valid one. In any event, the plaintiff lost her title to the said property because of adverse possession exercised by the defendants 2 to 7.
(3.) The Trial Court did not accept the validity of the Will but decreed the suit in part by accepting the title of the plaintiff in respect of C Schedule property, namely, the house property. The plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal being A.S. No. 564/1975 against the said judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The single Bench of the High Court allowed the said appeal inter alia on the finding that the Will set up by the first respondent is valid. It was also held that the appellants, namely, defendants 2 to 7 did not acquire title to the suit property by adverse possession. Thereafter, the defendants 2 to 7 preferred LPA. 70/1979 in the High Court. By the impugned judgment, such LPA has also been dismissed.;