THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4848 of 2007 and 4178 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The respondents are common in both the revisions. These two revisions arise under identical circumstances. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. One Smt. T.Satyamma filed O.S.No.96 of 1995 in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the first respondent herein for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was decreed on 20.12.2004. Thereupon, the first respondent herein filed A.S.No.63 of 2005 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. The appeal is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, Smt. T.Satyamma died on 22.04.2005. The first respondent filed I.A.No.454 of 2006 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC with a prayer to bring the daughter-in-law and two grand children of late Satyamma, on record as her legal representatives. The I.A. was allowed on 03.07.2006 and respondent Nos.3 to 5 were brought on record as legal representatives of late Satyamma. The petitioners herein filed I.A.Nos.259 of 2005 and 1284 of 2007 respectively. According to them, Satyamma executed a registered Will, dated 13.04.2005, bequeathing her interest to the extent of 40% and 10% respectively in the suit claim, in their favour and balance 50% in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. With this plea, they wanted to get themselves impleaded as respondents in the appeal. The application was opposed mainly by the first respondent. Through separate orders, dated 31.07.2007 and 09.06.2008 respectively, the lower appellate Court dismissed the applications. Hence, these two revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The sole respondent in A.S.No.63 of 2005 died. On receiving that information, the first respondent herein filed I.A.No.454 of 2006 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. The application was allowed on 03.07.2006 and respondent Nos.3 to 5 were brought on record. In addition to the natural descendants, the petitioners herein claimed rights over the estate of late Satyamma based on Will, dated 13.04.2005. The lower appellate Court refused to accede to the request of the petitioners to be impleaded as respondents, on the ground that the Will is yet to be proved, and it is only the natural descendants, that can represent the estate of late Satyamma. The respondents contend that in an appeal that arises out of a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, other questions, such as, validity of the Will, entitlement of the legatees cannot be decided. There is absolutely, no difficulty in accepting that proposition. A suit for specific performance, or appeal, that arises out of it, cannot be burdened with other principal or subsidiary questions, which have a bearing upon the succession to the deceased parties. The matter, however, does not end there. It is a settled principle of law that any person, who claims share in the estate of a deceased, is entitled to participate in the proceedings either as a legal representative or otherwise. The participation of such persons would be restricted to the one of ensuring that the proceedings are conducted properly. Their actual entitlement shall have to be decided in a separate set of proceedings. Therefore, the right of the petitioners to participate in the proceedings cannot be denied. The truth, legality or validity of the Will relied upon by them, has to be decided in a separate set of proceedings. Their participation can be restricted to the one for advancing the plea that was raised by late Satyamma in the suit. It cannot be said, respondent Nos.3 to 5 would suffer any detriment on account of the presence of the petitioners herein in the proceedings, as long as their role is restricted to the one for supporting the decree. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, and the orders under revisions are set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.259 of 2005 and 1284 of 2007 are allowed and the petitioners herein shall be added as respondent Nos.6 and 7 to A.S.No.63 of 2005. It is, however, directed that the role of the petitioners herein shall be restricted to the one for supporting the decree and not to take any independent or separate plea. The lower appellate Court shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal as early as possible, without granting any adjournment, if requested by the petitioners. In the event of the decree in O.S.No.96 of 2005 becoming final, the entitlement of the petitioners herein to be included in the resultant sale deed, would depend upon the outcome of the proceedings to be independently instituted by them for declaration of their respective rights. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19th AUGUST, 2009. kvni