IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3903 of 2009 Between: G.Chandrasekhar Reddy and another ..... PETITIONERS AND G.Venkatramana Reddy (died) and 15 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3903 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners herein are the defendants 1 and 12 in the suit O.S.17/2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein against the petitioners herein and others for partition of the suit schedule property into 6 equal shares and to allot 2/6th share to the 1st plaintiff and 1/6th share to plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4. It is stated that during pendency of the suit the 1st plaintiff died on 04.11.2005 bequeathing his share in the property in favour of his son-in- law and two minor sons of the said son-in-law which was registered on 07.07.1999. It is stated that they being the legatees they are proper and necessary parties and therefore, they have to be impleaded as plaintiffs 5 to 7 in the suit, and for which the plaintiffs have filed I.A.234/2006 for their impleadment. A counter was filed by these petitioners herein admitting the date of death of 1st plaintiff on 04.11.2005 but disputing about the execution of the said Will dated 07.07.1999. It is contended that Xerox copy of the Will cannot be admitted. The petitioners have also disputed with regard to relationship in between the implead petitioners and the deceased plaintiff. It is also disputed that the deceased 1st plaintiff has got four daughters and one of the daughter was given to Mopireddy Raja Reddy who has got two minor sons through the daughter of the deceased 1st plaintiff. Considering the material on record, the Court below allowed the said application holding that the said impleaded plaintiffs have to prove the Will by filing the original documents. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the execution of the Will in favour of the so called illatom son-in-law is improper and cannot be believed. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said contention as unless the parties who are claiming right through the Will are permitted to come on record, it is not possible to decide the issue as to whether the property covered by the Will forms part and parcel of the suit schedule property and as to whether the said Will is genuine or not. The purview of the said application is only to consider as to whether they are entitled to come on record or not pursuant to the alleged Will. I am of the opinion that merely because they are added as parties, it cannot be said that the Will is genuine and that the property covered by the Will forms part and parcel of the suit schedule property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said persons who are impleaded as plaintiffs 5 to 7 are not proper and necessary parties. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 28.08.2009 Dsr