THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETTION No.952 of 2011 Date of Order:18.03.2011 Between: Josyula Naga Koteswara Sarma and antoher ..Petitioners and Josyula Sivakoti Subramanyam and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.952 of 2011 ORDER :- This revision is directed by the petitioners/proposed parties to revise the order, dated 08.02.2011, passed by VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada in dismissing I.A.No.716 of 2008 in O.S.No.47 of 2005, filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioners as plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 in the above suit. The suit is filed by the 1st plaintiff for declaration that he is the trustee in the place of P.P.K.Durgamba garu in the trust board of Sri Durgamalleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Durgapuram by virtue of registered Will executed by P.P.K.Durgamba garu, dated 23.08.2000, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his men, agents, servants etc., to obstruct the plaintiffs from entering and participating in the daily Puja, Harati, Yagnas, yearly functions etc. The plaint allegations briefly goes to show that in the suit being O.S.No.163 of 1961 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada filed by one Kumara Swamy for partition of the joint family properties and for separate possession, a compromise decree was passed on 06.02.1968. As per the said terms of compromise, the management trustship of the temple was entrusted to the said Durgamba during her lifetime and joint properties were treated as private and family trust of Devastanam. The recitals of the compromise decree clearly shows that the Management of the trustship of the temple was entrusted to Durgamba and also the properties of the temple through out her life and after her death the 1st defendant shall act as managing trustee in alternative years by rotation and maintenance of proper accounts. Durgamba also filed a suit being O.S.No.620 of 1981 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the 1st defendant and P.C.K.Sastry to deliver the managing trustship of the temple together with its records in terms of the compromise, which was decreed on 16.10.1981. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant filed A.S.No.39 of 1989 on the file of III Additional District Court, Krishna, Vijayawada, which was ended in compromise on 06.08.1999. Since the plaintiff was very close to Durgamba and looking after her needs, she executed a general power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff on 06.11.2000 to act on her behalf by intimating the same to the 1st defendant through letter, dated 16.11.2000. Later she executed a Will on 23.08.2000 bequeathing all her movable and immovable properties to the plaintiff and nominated the plaintiff as a trustee in her place in the trust board of Devasthanam. On the death of Durgamba, the 1st defendant filed O.P.No.283 of 2001 before the Principal District Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam for appointing a new trustee in succession and the court appointed defendant No.2 to administer the temple properties by an ex parte order. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.498 of 2006 to add his second wife as 2nd plaintiff in the present suit in pursuance of Registered Trust Deed, dated 10.02.2006, claiming succession to trusteeship and to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. On the death of the 1st plaintiff, the petitioners filed the impugned I.A. to add them as co-plaintiffs along with the 2nd plaintiff. The lower court rightly dismissed the I.A. holding that if at all the petitioners have got any right, they have to file a separate suit against the concerned person, who was impleaded as 2nd plaintiff by the deceased 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff himself filed I.A.No.498 of 2006 stating that she is entitled to be appointed as a trustee as per the registered trust deed, dated 10.02.2006. In view of the conflict of interest between the 2nd plaintiff and the petitioners, who are claiming to be the legal representatives, it cannot be adjudicated in the present suit contrary to the pleadings of the deceased/1st plaintiff filed in I.A. impleading the 2nd plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the lower court, does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 4, 2011 Lmv