HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4252 OF 2009 DATE:25-03-2011 BETWEEN Chilamkurthi Sobhanachalam (died) and another …Petitioner AND Chilamkurthi Govardhana Rao and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4252 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner-third party filed I.A.No.661 of 2009 in O.S.No.98 of 2002 to implead her as defendant No.6 in the suit as legal representative of deceased first defendant. On dismissal of said I.A. by order dated 26.6.2009 by the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the said order. Admittedly, the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the brothers of deceased first defendant filed the above suit for declaration to declare the registered sale deed dated 31.3.1998 executed by deceased first defendant in favour of second defendant as illegal, invalid and unenforceable in law and to evict the second defendant from the petition schedule property by granting time and to deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiffs as well as defendants 3 to 5. The plaintiffs, first defendant and defendants 3 to 5 are all sons of late Apparao, who died in 1971. Upon the death of first defendant, the impugned I.A. is filed by the petitioner herein under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. claiming that she is the legally wedded wife of first defendant and to permit her to participate in the suit proceedings by impleading her as sixth defendant. It is not in dispute that the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and the counsel for the plaintiffs reported no further evidence and when the matter was posted for the evidence of first defendant, the impugned I.A. came to be filed. The suit itself is filed for declaration to declare the registered sale deed, dated 31.3.1998 as null and void but not for declaration of the shares of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 5 in the suit schedule property except stating that alienation of plaint A schedule property in favour of second defendant by first defendant claiming as absolute owner is not binding on them. The issue involved in the suit is whether first defendant possessed a valid title to alienate the plaint A schedule property in favour of second defendant. If the plaintiffs establish that the said property is the joint family property, then the first defendant has no right to alienate the same in favour of second defendant. Since it is not a suit for partition and division of the shares among the parties, the lower Court rightly dismissed the impugned I.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that out of Ac.4.00 cents of land, first defendant sold only Ac.1.00 cents of land to second defendant and if any finding is recorded to the effect that the entire extent of Ac.4.00 cents of land is the joint family property and first defendant has no alienable right, the valuable right of the petitioner, who succeeded to the said property being the sole legal heir of first defendant would be affected to succeed the said property left by first defendant. This Court does not find any merit in the said contention to implead the petitioner as sixth defendant in the suit. If the petitioner had any right having succeeded to the property and if the said property exclusively belongs to first defendant, she can always file a suit for declaration of title over the said property by impleading necessary parties or she can file a suit for partition of the said property apart from other properties against the brothers of her husband. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality with the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 25, 2011 Tsr.