HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.2816 OF 2009 DATE:26-02-2010 BETWEEN: K.Chellayamma Devi …Petitioner AND Chekkapalli Vishnu & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.2816 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-third party assailing the correctness of the order, dated 7.4.2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram whereby I.A.No.856 of 2008 in O.S.No.140 of 2005 filed by the petitioner to add her as one of the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff in the suit was dismissed. Admittedly, the above suit was instituted by the father of the petitioner herein against the respondents 1 and 2 herein for recovery of debt covered by suit pronote. Upon the death of the plaintiff, the petitioner herein filed the impugned I.A. to come on record as one of the legal representatives of her deceased father. According to her, on 19.1.2008 her father died leaving behind her, the respondents 4 to 9 and another daughter by name Penubotula Chinnayyamma and mother Kosireddi Kamaraju. Herself, the respondents 4 to 9 and Penubotula Chinnayyamma are children and Kosireddi Kamaraju is mother of deceased plaintiff. Upon the death of the her father-plaintiff, his sons i.e. respondents 4 to 9, basing on a will set up by them, got implead as legal heirs of deceased-plaintiff by filing I.A.No.230 of 2008. Therefore, she should also be added as one of the legal heirs of deceased- plaintiff. By the impugned order, the lower Court dismissed the I.A. only on the ground that the amount covered by the present suit was not shown in the earlier partition suit in O.S.No.150 of 2006 filed by the petitioner herein and that she never tried to join in the suit before disposal of I.A.No.230 of 2008, and that as the deceased executed a will, the respondents 4 to 9 are added as parties to the suit basing on that will and at this stage, the will executed by the deceased cannot be challenged and the petitioner is not entitled to be added as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff in the suit. Even if the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.150 of 2006 for partition is decreed and a share is allotted to her father; upon the death of her father, all the legal heirs are entitled to that share. The aspect whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a share in the suit schedule debt as per the alleged will executed by her father is a matter that can be gone into in the main suit. The proposition of law laid down by this Court in G.N.Kishore Reddy v. R.Venugopal Rao (2004 (3) ALD 683), on which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 9 is completely misplaced to the facts of the case on hand. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside and consequently, I.A.No.856 of 2008 filed by the petitioner stands allowed. The revision is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 26, 2010 Tsr.