Order: The deceased 1st respondent filed O.S. No.12 of 1988 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, against one Smt. Kondapalle Venkatarathnam and others for the relief of declaration that he is the adopted son of Smt. Venkatarathnam and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties. After contest by the defendants therein, the trial Court rendered a judgment on 18-11-2004 holding that the 1st respondent is the adoptive son of Venkatarathnam. However, the suit was dismissed denying the relief of recovery of possession. Challenging the finding recorded by the trial Court as to adoption, Venkatarathnam preferred A.S. No.262 of 2005 in the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vishakapatnam at Anakapalle. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, Venkatarathnam died. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit i.e., respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein filed I.A. No.174 of 2006 in A.S. No.262 of 2005 with a prayer to transpose them as appellants. However, before the interlocutory application was allowed, they filed a memo withdrawing the same. The trial Court dismissed the interlocutory application on 28-11-2007, and, as a result, the appeal was dismissed as abated on 07-12-2007. 3. The petitioner claims to be transferee of the property from Venkatarathnam. He filed a separate suit, being O.S. No.38 of 1997 to which the 1st respondent was a party. The issue as to adoption of the 1st respondent figured in that suit also. His suit was dismissed on 17-09-2008 and at present he is pursuing the remedy by filing A.S. No.5 of 2009, which is now pending in the same lower appellate Court viz., X Additional District and Sessions Judge. Stating that he is claiming rights through Venkatarathnam and that he answers the description of ‘legal representative’ as defined under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”). The petitioner filed four applications being I.A. Nos.575, 576, 578 and 577 of 2008 in A.S. No.262 of 2005 with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, to restore the appeal to its file, to implead him as appellant and for permission to prosecute the appeal, respectively. Through separate orders dated 07-02-2011, the lower appellate Court dismissed all the applications. Hence, these revisions. 4. Through separate orders dated 07-02-2011, the lower appellate Court dismissed all the applications. Hence, these revisions. 4. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 5. The petitioner is not a party to A.S. No.262 of 2005, which was filed by the sole appellant Venkatarathnam. He did not feel the necessity of getting impleaded in the suit or the appeal on account of the fact that the vendor was very much contesting the suit filed by the 1st respondent. Once the sole appellant died, one expects that his legal representatives would come on record. That however did not happen. Obviously, because the petitioner was not a party to the appeal, he too did not take adequate steps. It is only at a later stage that he came to know about it. The subject matter of the appeal itself is very limited viz., whether the 1st respondent herein was the adopted son of late Venkatarathnam. That finding would have its own bearing upon the proceedings initiated by the petitioner. It is for that reason the petitioner had to file a batch of applications in the appeal. 6. The petitioner is not claiming any interest adverse to the deceased appellant. On the other hand, he is claiming rights through his vendor. He squarely answers the description of ‘legal representative’ as defined under Section 2(11) of CPC. 7. Therefore, all these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the lower appellate Court in the respective applications are set aside. As a result, all the interlocutory applications stand allowed and the petitioner shall be permitted to prosecute the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision shall stand closed.