IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5005 AND 5047 of 2011 Between: Padmavathi and others … Petitioners And Gunja Ratnamma and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5005 AND 5047 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: - Petitioners, who are third parties to the suits O.S.No.38 and 37 of 2008 namely daughter of late Venkata Ratnam and plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.38 of 2008 and sisters of plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2008 filed I.A.No.92 and 93 of 2011 in O.S.No.38 and 37 of 2008 respectively to implead them as defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the said suits. On dismissal of the said I.As., by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada by order, dated 20.10.2011, the present revisions are filed. Even according to the petitioners late Venkataratnam, who was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land, during his life time executed a Will in sound and disposing state of mind in respect of the properties bequeathing life interest to his wife Sarojini/plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.38 of 2008 and vested remainder to his son/ plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.37 of 2008. Further, petitioner No.1 ﬁled O.S.No.38 of 2008 seeking permanent injunction against the defendant/his son, from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and to declare that she is the lawful owner of the plaint schedule properties. Whereas the defendant in O.S.No.38 of 2008 ﬁled O.S.No.37 of 2008 to declare that he is the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of possession over the plaint schedule property from the defendant by declaring that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property; and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. When it is admitted that late Venkataratnam is the owner and possessor and bequeathed the said property under the Will granting life interest to his wife and vested remainder to his son, the petitioners have not conferred any rights over the said property and they are not necessary and proper parties to the suit. If the petitioners have any right in the properties, it is always open for them to ﬁle a comprehensive suit against the plaintiﬀs seeking appropriate relief. In that view of the matter, no illegality or inﬁrmity is discernible with the orders passed by the lower court, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 30.11.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5005 and 5047 of 2011 30.11.2011 lmv