JUDGMENT : This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 07.04.2011 in A.S.No.18 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Khammam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007, passed in O.S.No.345 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 4. The appellant is defendant No.3 in the suit and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff, who is the son of 3rd respondent. Appellant and 3rd respondent are the brother and son of the 2nd respondent respectively. Initially, the plaintiff filed a pauper O.P. vide O.P.No.47 of 1992 and basing on the orders of the Court, plaint was instituted on 29.07.1991 and subsequently it was numbered as O.S.No.31 of 1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is with respect to four properties i.e. A, B, C & D schedule properties for partition into six equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and put him into possession. It is relevant to mention that ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties are situated at Tenali and ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties are situated at Virivindi village of Khammam District. The Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, after considering the pleadings of both the parties, framed issues as under : “1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try suit over the suit schedule properties C and D which are situated at Virivindi village of Burgampahad Mandal of Khammam District? 2. Whether Virivindi village in Burgampahad Mandal of Khammam District is notified as scheduled area? 3. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction either territorial or pecuniary to entertain the suit?” 5. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try suit over the suit schedule properties C and D which are situated at Virivindi village of Burgampahad Mandal of Khammam District? 2. Whether Virivindi village in Burgampahad Mandal of Khammam District is notified as scheduled area? 3. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction either territorial or pecuniary to entertain the suit?” 5. After considering the entire material on record, the trial Court gave a finding that the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Tenali has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the Government has declared Burgampahad Mandal as a “Scheduled Area” vide Notification issued in the official gazette in G.O.Ms.No.198, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 20.04.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.1573, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 30.07.1972, and as such, the Civil Court cannot entertain the suit as the schedule property is situated in Scheduled Area, and accordingly, returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC on 02.11.2005, for presenting it before proper Court. 6. The plaintiff again re-presented the plaint before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and the suit was numbered as O.S.No.345 of 2005. Later, the plaintiff gave up his claim against respondent Nos.4 to 23 as ‘not pressed’ and also did not claim his share with respect to ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. 7. The trial Court decreed the suit in terms of compromise, however, the appellant herein was not a party to the compromise, as he was set ex parte in the suit. 8. It is relevant to mention that the trial Court has not decided the question “Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit as some of the suit schedule properties are situated in the Scheduled Area”, but passed the decree as the parties have arrived at a compromise. Being aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the compromise, the appellant/3rd defendant filed an appeal vide A.S.No.18 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Khammam. 9. Being aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the compromise, the appellant/3rd defendant filed an appeal vide A.S.No.18 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Khammam. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the 3rd defendant was set ex parte and when the appellant was about to file a petition to set aside the said ex parte orders, it has come to his knowledge that an interlocutory application i.e. I.A.No.2049 of 2007 was filed to advance the suit, in order to record the compromise, which was allowed by the trial Court and compromise was recorded behind his back. It is further contended that even the first appellate Court, without considering the fact that some of the suit schedule properties are in Scheduled Area, has dismissed his appeal on the ground that as appeal shall not lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties, and therefore, prayed to set aside the orders of both the Courts below. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that though the appellant was set ex parte, in view of the compromise before the trial Court, the appellant also had a share in the property, and therefore, the appellate Court has rightly confirmed the orders of the trial Court in O.S.No.345 of 2005, dated 13.12.2007, and hence, prayed to dismiss the Second Appeal as it is devoid of merits. 11. It is important to extract the judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.345 of 2005, dated 13.12.2007, which reads as under : “I.A.No.2049/2007 allowed and suit advanced to today. Hence, office is directed to prepare the decree in terms of the compromise petition.” 12. From the above order, it is clear that an interlocutory application was filed to advance the suit to 17.12.2007 in order to record the compromise and a decree was passed by the trial Court in terms of the compromise with respect to plaint schedule properties which are described from ‘A’ to ‘H’ Schedules. It is important to note that the properties mentioned in each of the schedule are relating to different areas as under : Item Nos.1 to 11 of ‘A’ Schedule properties relate to the lands situated in Kolipara village of Guntur District. It is important to note that the properties mentioned in each of the schedule are relating to different areas as under : Item Nos.1 to 11 of ‘A’ Schedule properties relate to the lands situated in Kolipara village of Guntur District. Item Nos.1 to 3 of ‘B’ Schedule properties relate to the lands situated in Tenali of Guntur District. Item Nos.1 to 6 of ‘C’ Schedule properties are the houses, but the name of the District in which those houses are situated, was not mentioned except the door numbers and the extents. Item Nos.1 to 9 of ‘D’ Schedule properties relate to the houses situated at Virivindi village of Burgampahad Mandal in Khammam District. Item Nos.1 to 6 of ‘E’ Schedule properties relate to the lands situated in Virivindi village of Burgampahad Mandal in Khammam District. Item Nos.1 to 4 of ‘F’ Schedule properties relate to the lands situated in Virivindi village of Burgampahad Mandal in Khammam District. Item Nos.1 to 5 of ‘G’ Schedule properties relate to the lands situated in Virivindi village of Burgampahad Mandal in Khammam District. Land in ‘H’ Schedule is also situated in Virivindi village of Burgampahad Mandal in Khammam District. 13. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that vide G.O.Ms.No.1573, dated 30.12.1972, the following Notification was published in the Gazette “in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section (3) of Section (1) of A.P.Civil Courts Act, 1972, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby appoints the 1st day of November 1972, as the date on which all the provisions of the said Act shall come into force in the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh except in the Scheduled Areas of the State.” As per the said G.O., Burgampahad Mandal was also covered under Scheduled Area and Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try or entertain the suits relating to the properties which fall under such Scheduled Areas, and hence, the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, are null and void in the eye of law, and therefore, he prayed to set aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. 14. 14. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank & others v. Medi Narayana & Others, (2013) 11 SCC 362 , wherein, their Lordships have held at paras 4 and 9 as under : “4. In the midst of hearing these appeals, a peculiar problem has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that under Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (hereinafter for short ‘Act 19 of 1972’), a notification has been issued by the Governor in exercise of powers under sub-Section (3) of Section (1) of the Act 19 of 1972 by which, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts have come into force in the whole of State of Andhra Pradesh except in Scheduled Areas of the State.” It is contended by Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) that even before coming into force of the Act, the Civil Courts had been established in the Scheduled Areas and they have been functioning since 1950. The appellant(s), decree-holders, obtained a decree from the Civil Court in the Scheduled Areas, however, since the operation of Act No.19 of 1972 is excluded from the Scheduled Areas of the State, they are unable to execute the decree. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, held that as the Act itself is not applicable in the Scheduled Areas, the decree passed by the Civil Court is null and void and in-executable. It has been brought to our notice that now many non-Scheduled people are residing in the Scheduled Areas of the State including owners of commercial and business houses. That apart, many banks have been established including the appellant banks, who are non-Scheduled people and they are being deprived of resolution of the disputes through the Civil Courts. Even in those cases which have been decided by the Civil Courts, the decrees could not be executed because the Civil Courts Act is not applicable and the decree passed by the Civil Courts in Scheduled Areas has been declared null and void. These are the contentions over which we have given our serious consideration. Even in those cases which have been decided by the Civil Courts, the decrees could not be executed because the Civil Courts Act is not applicable and the decree passed by the Civil Courts in Scheduled Areas has been declared null and void. These are the contentions over which we have given our serious consideration. A dispute may arise between the people of Scheduled Areas and non-Scheduled Areas in which case, in our view, the people of non-Scheduled Areas cannot be subjected to the methodology and the procedure adopted while resolving the dispute between the people of Scheduled Areas. In our view, therefore, a mechanism has to be evolved in a case where the dispute involved is between the people of Scheduled Areas and non-Scheduled areas. One way of resolving this problem is by either issuing a notification or by an amendment in the Act to the extent that the Civil Courts Act shall be extended to the Scheduled Areas of the State except where the dispute involved is between people Of Scheduled and non-Scheduled Areas. While saying this we also took note of the observation made by the High Court. The High Court, while allowing the petition, also took note the submission of the counsel for the appellant that it is necessary to confer the jurisdiction over the Scheduled Areas on the Civil Courts also. The High Court observed that it is for the State Government to take expeditious steps as early as possible to issue a notification extending the provisions of Civil Courts Act even with retrospective effect in the Scheduled Areas for the peace and good government and for the speedy disposal of the civil cases in the Scheduled Areas. Copy of the High Court order was also directed to be endorsed to Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is unfortunate that no steps appears to have been taken pursuant to such observation. In this view of the matter, we are now of the view that the matter requires serious consideration of the State Government at the earliest in terms of our suggestions as noted above. Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the State prays for three months' time for taking necessary steps in the matter and issuing appropriate notification in this regard. List these matters after three months. Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the State prays for three months' time for taking necessary steps in the matter and issuing appropriate notification in this regard. List these matters after three months. Registry shall send a copy of this order to Registrar General of the Andhra Pradesh High Court who shall coordinate with the State Government for doing the needful." Pursuant to the above order, the State Government started deliberating on the issues raised by this Court.” “9. We have carefully considered the matter and we are satisfied that the judgments under challenge in this group of civil appeals do not require any interference.” 15. The above judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, the suit schedule properties mentioned in ‘D’ to ‘H’ Schedules are situated in Virivindi village of Burgampahad Mandal of Khammam District, which comes under Scheduled area and as per the Gazette Notification issued by the Governor of the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as the Notification issued under A.P.Civil Courts Act clearly disclose that the said Act is not extended to the Scheduled Areas of the State, and therefore, the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suits, and as such, the judgment and decree of the trial Court i.e. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in O.S.No.345 of 2005, dated 13.12.2007 and the judgment dated 07.04.2011 in A.S.No.18 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Khammam, are hereby declared as null and void. 16. As per the ratio formulated in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank’s case (1 supra), it is clear that the persons who are having decrees, orders or judgments in their favour passed by the Civil Courts (may lay their claim before the Agency Courts). In the event of such claims being laid before the Agency Courts, the same shall be decided by the Agency Courts uninfluenced by any judgment, decree or order passed by the Civil Courts. In view of the said proposition, liberty is given to the parties herein to approach the appropriate Agency Court in accordance with law. 17. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed setting aside the orders passed by both the Courts below. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.