HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4557 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 24-07- 2009, passed in I.A.No.19 of 2008 in A.S.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the respondents in A.S.No.12 of 2006 are:- Bandar Venkatesh and Bandar Shekar filed O.S.No.22 of 2001 against Bandar Ramulu, K.Chandrasekhar, K.Subrahmanyam, K.Satyanarayana, P.Narasimha reddy, P.Rajeshwaramma and Bandar Manemma, for partition and separate possession of their shares. They claim that they are the sons of Bandar Ramulu and the suit schedule property is the joint family property and therefore they are entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Bandar Ramulu-1st defendant filed written statement stating that the suit schedule property is no more available for partition, since he along with his brother disposed of the property under registered sale deed, dated 16-02-1970, and thereafter further transactions had taken place on 16-02-1976. In a way, his contention is that the suit schedule property is no more available for partition. Defendants 2 to 6 filed written statement setting up title to the suit schedule property. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit land? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? 3) Whether the compromise decree in O.S.35/93 is binding on defendants? 4) Whether there is 0.05 guntas of land in Sy.No.1149? 5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joining of necessary parties? 6) To what relief? On behalf of plaintiffs, one witness was examined and 14 documents were marked and on behalf of defendants, five witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked. The trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing counsel appearing for the parties, found that the plaintiffs are entitled for 2/3rd share in the suit schedule land and thereby passed a preliminary decree by judgment, dated 06-04-2006. Assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.22 of 2001, Defendants 1 to 6 filed A.S.No.12 of 2006. Pending the appeal, B.Venkatesh died and his legal representatives came on record as R.3 to R.6. Defendant No.2 and legal representatives of Defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.19 of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 3 r/w 151 C.P.C to reject the appeal filed by the appellants 2 to 6. The appellants 2 to 6 filed counter resisting the application. The learned senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application by order, dated 24-07-2009. Hence this revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners 2 to 6 are the legal representatives of the 1st defendant and since they did not choose to continue the appeal, the appeal filed by the appellants 2 to 6 deserves to be rejected. In a way, his contention is that the appellate Court ought not have permitted Defendants 1 to 6 to file the appeal jointly. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned in the revision. It is a matter of record that B.Venkatesh and B.Shekhar filed a suit for partition against their father who is Defendant No.1 and other persons who have been shown as Defendants 2 to 6. The plaintiff sought for the relief of partition as well as injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 pleaded in the written statement that the suit schedule property is not available for partition, as the same has been disposed of by him and his brother under registered sale deed. The other defendants pleaded that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and it is not the joint family property of the plaintiff and 1st defendant. However the learned Junior Civil Judge on full-fledged trial recorded a finding that the suit schedule property is joint family property and that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share therein. The defendants 1 to 6 assailed the Judgment and decree, dated 06-04-2006 in O.S.No.22 of 2001, by filing A.S.No.12 of 2006. Since all the defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiffs, there is conflict interest among them and thus the appeal filed by them together does not suffer from any legal infirmities such as mis joinder of parties etc. Therefore, the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for mis joinder of parties cannot be sustained. The appellate Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and dismissed the application by giving cogent and convincing reasons. It does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of C.P.C. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. __________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 14th February, 2011 VJL/SMR