HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1666 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 4.3.2010 in I.A. No. 16 of 2010 in A.S. No.1 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court- cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner for framing an issue with regard to the registered will dated 21.12.1991, was dismissed. 2. The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 163 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur The petitioner is the defendant No.7 and the respondents 2 to 6 are the other defendants in the suit. The petitioner filed the aforementioned application before the lower appellate Court under Order XIV (5)(1) of C.P.C. requesting the Court to frame an issue with regard to the registered will dated 21.12.1991 said to have executed by one Bharatham Subbanarasaiah in favour of his wife and son, who are the respondents 2 and 3 herein. While opposing the petition, the 1st respondent filed counter denying the material averments and stating that after framing issues regarding the nature of schedule property as joint family property and the entitlement of the property by the 2nd respondent alone, the trial Court rendered its judgment basing upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it and that there is no necessity to frame an additional issue as prayed for by the petitioner. The lower appellate Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is the auction purchaser of the property in question; that the property is the self acquired property of respondents 2 and 3, who acquired the same through a registered will and therefore, an issue has to be framed with regard to the will. He, therefore, prays to allow the revision petition. 4. Admittedly, no such plea was taken by the petitioner with regard to the execution of registered will dated 21.12.1991 before the trial Court. The trial Court passed the preliminary decree holding that the 1st respondent and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are entitled for 1/6th share each in the property. When there is no specific pleading with regard to the execution of the will, the question of framing an issue with regard to the same does not arise. However, if the petitioner has already taken a plea with regard to the execution of will by defendants 1 and 2 and necessary evidence has been let in, and then only that fact has to be decided by the lower appellate Court, while deciding issue No.1 in the main appeal. 5. Hence, the lower appellate Court has rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU,J DATE: 15.11.2010 pnb