IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L . NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4930, 5027 AND 5272 OF 2010 DATED:19.11.2010 Between: M. Sunder Raj … Petitioner And Khatton Bi and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L . NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4930, 5027 AND 5272 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: O.S. No.75 of 1979 was filed in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. Preliminary decree was passed way back in the year 1994 and it is said to have become final. I.A. No.18 of 1996 was filed for passing of final decree. At that stage, the petitioners herein filed applications to get themselves impleaded as parties to the suit. It was urged that during the pendency of the suit, they have purchased certain items of property from one of the parties namely, the third defendant. They pleaded that their interest needs to be protected at the time passing the final decree and in that view of the matter, they are proper and necessary parties. The applications were opposed by the plaintiffs in the suit. The trial Court dismissed the applications through order dt.8.9.2010. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions. Heard Sri K. Sitaram and Sri T.S. Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri B. Sarvotham Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents, who filed caveat. The petitioners are no doubt third parties to the suit. They have purchased a part of the suit schedule property from one of the parties to the suit, namely, the third defendant. They did not raise any objection to the preliminary decree. Their endeavour is only to ensure that the property purchased by them is allotted to the share of the third defendant, in the final decree. Viewed in this context, the petitioners are not only proper, but are necessary parties in the suit. In case the properties purchased by them are allotted to the share of another party, other than the third defendant, several complications would arise. The question as to whether the petitioners have derived any title from the purchases made from the third defendant, can also be gone into in the final decree proceedings. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders under revision are set aside. The applications filed by the petitioners shall stand allowed. It is, however, directed that the petitioners shall not have any right to oppose final decree proceedings and their right shall only to the extent of insisting on allotment of the land purchased by them to the share of their vendor, the third defendant. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19.11.2010 bnr