IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.966 of 2010 Between: K.Srinivas Reddy … Petitioner And Kovvuri Praveena and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 966 OF 2010 ORDER:- This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a third party to the proceedings in O.S.No.33 of 2008, is directed against the orders of the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, in dismissing I.A.No.2498 of 2008, dated 31.12.2009 filed to implead him as a defendant in the said suit. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule property against the 2nd respondent/defendant in the suit. The plaintiff is the wife of late K.Butchi Reddy who is the father of K.Satish Raja born to plaintiff’s husband through first wife Manohari and after death of Manohari, K.Butchi Reddy married the plaintiff through whom there were no children. According to the plaintiff, her mother-in-law Aruna, her husband and Lakshmi Karunakar Reddy purchased some property in their names as well as in the name of her stepson Satish Raja. Her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law died in a road accident on 03.09.1999, After their death, there was a partition between herself and her stepson K.Satish Raja and the properties were allotted to her stepson in the partition deed dated 30.06.2001, represented by his maternal grand father i.e., 2nd respondent herein/defendant. On the death of K.Satish Raja on 03.03.2008, she is entitled to succeed some properties, which are in the hands of the 2nd respondent/defendant as guardian of her son. Therefore, she filed the above suit for declaration, declaring her as absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the death of K.Satish Raja and for recovery of possession, in which, the petitioner filed the present I.A. to implead him as a 2nd defendant contending that he got two brothers namely K.Satyanarayana Reddy and K.Suryanarayana Reddy, who are the sons of K.Butchi Redy and they got sisters who got married long back. K.Satyanarayana Reddy died long back and he got two sons namely K.Butchi Reddy, husband of the plaintiff and Lakshmi Karunakar Reddy, whose whereabouts were not known. K.Butchi Reddy married one Manohari, daughter of 1st defendant in the suit and begotten a child by name Satish Raja. On the death of his first wife Manohari, K.Butchi Reddy married the plaintiff and through her there were no children. On the death of K.Butchi Reddy, plaintiff went away from the family by taking away Ac.3-00 of landed property in the registered partition deed and married one Mallidi Sesha Reddy of Komaripalem, Rayavaram Mandal and living with him and gave birth to one son and one daughter through him. Therefore, the plaintiff in the suit is no longer a widow on the date of succession i.e., on the date of death of K.Satish Raja. Therefore, when all the properties covered by the suit schedule are In the name of his sister-in-law namely K.Aruna, wife of K.Satyanarayana Reddy, who died on the same day when K.Butchi Reddy died, and as the properties covered by the suit schedule stands in her name, he being her nearest heir is entitled to the properties, which are in his possession and enjoyment. Therefore, he is a proper and necessary party to the suit. The trial court earlier dismissed the impugned I.A., against which C.R.P.No.3647 of 2009 was filed and the same was allowed by this Court, remitting the matter to the trial Court to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and dispose of the I.A. afresh. On remitting the matter, the trial court after considering the documents, by the impugned order dismissed the I.A. holding that Ex.R1-copy of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted enquiry after giving notices to the party, disclose that Padala Lakshmi Kantham and her son Padala Dhanakoti Venkata Reddy, happened to be the wife and son of Padala Satyanarayana Reddy, changed their names as Kovvuri Lakshmi Kantham and K.Srinivasa Reddy for the purpose of grabbing the properties of Kovvuri Butchi Reddy, taking advantage of the fact that the son of Kovvuri Butchi Reddy i.e., Satyanarayana Reddy died and, therefore, it is not safe to rely upon those documents to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, which can be taken into consideration in the main suit, if tendered by the defendant. Since there is no dispute about the relationship among K.Butchi Reddy and others as claimed by the opposite parties, unless the petitioner obtains a legal heir certificate to represent the estate of late K.Butchi Reddy or Aruna, he is not entitled to get himself impleaded and accordingly dismissed the I.A. If the petitioner succeeded to the property of Late K.Aruna, sister-in-law of the petitioner, wife of Satyanarayana Reddy or any other properties, it is always open for him to institute a separate suit and establish his right over the suit schedule property. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 12th March 2010 lmv