HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3964 OF 2011 DATE:23-09-2011 BETWEEN Jonnalagadda Vaddi Kasulu and others …Petitioners AND Jonnalagadda Koteswara Rao and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3964 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioners, who filed the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2010 for declaration of their title and for injunction, filed I.A.No.11 of 2010 seeking interim injunction stating that Seetamahalakshmi executed a Will deed on 8.4.2006 bequeathing ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties in their favour. Contesting the said I.A., the first respondent filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioners and in the second paragraph he specifically denied about execution of Will on 8.4.2006 by Seetamahalakshmi in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs. But at para 3 of the counter, he set up a Will stated to be executed in his favour by his mother-Seetamahalakshmi, but inadvertently, mentioned the date of the Will as 8.4.2006. In fact, under the said Will, the petitioners herein are claiming their rights. On realizing the mistake, the impugned I.A.No.394 of 2011 was filed by first respondent herein for amendment of counter by striking out the digits 8.4.2006 and by overwriting thereon as Will dated 24.11.2005 in 2nd, 6th, 7th, 11th and 16th lines of para 4 in page No.3 and in line No.10 of para 6 at page No.4. On allowing the said I.A. by order dated 20.7.2011, the present revision is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the lower Court committed an error in allowing the amendment sought for by the first respondent and that during the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of the first respondent that no such Will was executed in his favour and to over come the same, the impugned I.A. was filed. This Court does not find any merit in the said contention. Once the first respondent denied the very execution of the Will set up by the petitioners dated 8.4.2006 in earlier paragraph of the counter, he cannot claim succession under the very same Will, which was denied by him. Therefore, by inadvertent, instead of 24.11.2005, the date of the Will on which the first respondent is relying was mentioned as 8.4.2006. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. It is needless to say that on allowing amendment, it cannot be understood that the Will set up by the first respondent is accepted and the said aspect has to be decided basing on the evidence and pleadings of the parties. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 Tsr.