IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.2980 & 2979 OF 2007 Between: Gullapalli Rajya Lakshmi and others …Petitioners A n d Rayapati Srinivasa Rao and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.2979 & 2980 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: These civil revision petitions arise out of the order dated 07-06-2007 passed separately in I.A.No.1105 of 2006 and 1103 of 2006 in O.S.No.67 of 2006, on the file of the III- Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said applications filed by the first respondent herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to come on record as 8th defendant in the suit and 8th respondent in I.A.No.889 of 2006, respectively, were allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein is a third party to the suit filed by the petitioners herein against respondents 2 to 8 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. The first respondent herein is the brother of the first plaintiff and is cousin brother of first defendant. The first respondent claims to be the owner of one ginning mill and two godowns situate in the suit schedule property and also in respect of 1/4th profit from gas agency. According to him, his father executed a registered Will dated 13-09-1996 bequeathing the gas agency and some other immoveable property in his favour and also in favour of his brother. He alleges that the husband of the first plaintiff stealthily removed the Will from almirah along with some other documents and subsequently brought another Will dated 05-03-1999 into existence as if the father bequeathed the entire two acres of land including the structures thereon and also half of the residential house in favour of the first plaintiff and as if the remaining portion of the house alone was given to the first respondent herein and as if the brother was given ten acres of land situate in Unguturu village. He further alleges that his father having come to know about the mischief executed a fresh Will dated 12-10-2001 bequeathing the ginning mill and 12 gins and two godowns situate in the suit property in favour of the first respondent along with 50 cents of land out of total extent of two acres. He also alleges that another ginning mill with 12 gins was given to the sister of the first plaintiff together with 50 cents of land and the remaining one acre was given to the first respondent’s brother, the first defendant. According to the first respondent, his father died on 06-02-2002 and the last Will dated 12-10-2001 came into operation. He, therefore, sought to come on record as 8th defendant in the suit and 8th respondent in the IA. The petitioners herein filed counters opposing the applications. 4. The trial Court observed that from the pleadings it is clear that in view of the contention raised by the first respondent herein, he is a necessary party to the suit and also to the petition. Accordingly, the said petitions were allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the present civil revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the suit is only for injunction and not for declaration of title and the plaintiff has every right to choose the defendants he intends to sue and the third party has no right to come on record against the wishes of the plaintiff. It is to be seen that the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction claiming absolute rights over the entire suit property. The plea of the first respondent third party is that by virtue of the Will dated 12-10-2001 which according to him is the last Will and testament of his father, he is also entitled for a ginning mill including 12 gins and 50 cents of site out of the suit property. He further alleges that the plaintiff is only a co- owner but not absolute owner of the entire suit property. The plaintiffs based their claim on an earlier will dated 05- 03-1999 which according to the first respondent-third party is a forged and fabricated document. The truth or otherwise of either of the two Wills cannot be gone into in the present proceedings as it is a matter to be considered only on evidence. Going by the pleadings, when the first respondent-third party is claiming rights of ownership and possession in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property, he is certainly a person interested in the subject matter of the suit and, therefore, a proper and necessary party to the suit and also to the injunction application. The presence of the first respondent-third party is necessary for an effective and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute in the presence of all the parties interested in the subject matter of the suit. The impugned orders permitting the first respondent herein third party to come on record as 8th defendant in the suit and 8th respondent in the I.A does not, therefore, suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. Interim suspension stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd March 2011 Lrkm.