THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4775 of 2008 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 25.08.2008, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 657 of 2007 in O.S. No. 32 of 1991, filed by the petitioner praying to implead him as party- defendant No. 22 in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s maternal grandmother, viz., Munna Bai was the absolute owner of the suit lands, and upon her demise, her mother , viz., Heera Bai succeeded, who died intestate leaving behind her and her four brothers, namely the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 died issueless. On account of his death, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share in the lands, which are not partitioned by metes and bounds. Since the plaintiff with a view to make wrongful gain, has filed the suit by showing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as the only legal heirs of her mother, and since the petitioner being one of the legal heirs is entitled to share in the property, she is proper and necessary party, for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, and therefore, the petitioner filed the present application praying to implead her party-defendant to the suit, but the Court below has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner praying to implead her as one of the party-defendants to the suit. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed and the petitioner be impleaded as one of the party-defendant to the suit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff submitted that the petitioner has not filed any material to show that Munna Bai, their grandmother was the owner of the suit lands and that upon her demise, her daughter, Heera Bai succeeded to the same. That the petitioner has not stated as to how Munna Bai acquired the suit schedule property, and that prior to 1956 female heirs had no right to succeed to the properties intestate and that the present application is filed when the suit is coming up for arguments. The petitioner is neither a proper nor a necessary party, and she filed the present application at the instance of the other defendants, and as such, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application, filed seeking her impleadment as one of the party-defendants in the suit, and prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and perused the order under revision. The petitioner though claimed that she is the grand daughter of late Munna Bai, and that after her death, her mother succeeded to the property, who died intestate, and that she being one of her legal heirs, is entitled to share in the property, and therefore, she being a proper and necessary party, should be implead as one of the party-defendant to the suit, the fact remains, the petitioner has not furnished any details as to when her grandmother Munna Bai and her mother Heera Bai died, whether prior to coming into the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or subsequent thereto. This apart, the petitioner filed the present application after lapse of nearly 17 years and that too when the suit is coming up for arguments. Be that as it may, for her impleadment as one of the party-defendant, must satisfy the Court that she is a proper and necessary party, and that that without her presence the issues involved in the suit cannot be properly adjudicated. The petitioner having not placed any material to show that she is a proper and necessary party, much less any material to show that she is one of the legal heirs of the person through whom she is claiming a right in the property, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Court below refusing to permit her to be impleaded as one of the party- defendant to the suit proceedings. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: December, 2009. KSR