HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6147 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order made in I.A.No.450 of 2008 in O.S.No.64 of 2007 dated 26/08/2009 whereunder the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice by the petitioners herein was dismissed. Respondents 2 and 3 laid the suit for partition of the suit schedule property under a will deed. The suit was filed in 2007. In 2008 the present I.A.No.450 of 2008 is filed by the present petitioners to bring them on record as plaintiffs 3 to 5 on the ground that they are proper and necessary parties. But the fact remains that they are also claiming under the very same will under which the plaintiffs and defendants claim in the suit. It is further an admitted fact that the will deed relied upon by the plaintiffs and the petitioners herein eliminated the female members of the family for the property. The will categorically speaks as to the fact that only the male members are entitled for the property under the will. Having taken these facts into consideration the trial Court passed the following order: “As seen from the contents of the affidavit of the plaintiff appended to the petition the schedule property belong to Akkamma, who executed a settlement deed on 29/08/1941 in favour of Narasimha Setty, who in turn executed a will in favour of Papisetty on 06/02/1942. As per respondent/defendant in the will dated 06/02/1942 Papisetty did not inherit any properties mentioned in the same, but his male issues were given right to inherit the same and on 09/01/1987 the sons of Papisetty by name Narasimha Rao having received Rs.30,000/-from Gangadhar Rao relinquished their respective shares in his favour in the schedule property and after demise of Gangadhar Rao the said properties devolved on his wife Sakuntala. As seen from the contents of the will, dated 06/02/1942, Papisetty was given the schedule properties and after his demise his male children were given absolute rights over the said properties. Since the proposed petitioners 3 to 5 are the daughters of Papisetty and as they were not given any right under the above said will, they are not necessary parties to this suit. As the petition merits no consideration, the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this petition is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs.” I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are neither proper parties nor necessary parties for the suit since they have no interest whatsoever under the will. The trial Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 12th April, 2010 SKM