IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3973 of 2008 Between: Kandipilli Ramana Prasad and 2 others ..... PETITIONERS AND Kandipilli Srikantha Vara Prasad and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3973 of 2008 ORDER: Heard. The petitioners are the third parties in O.S.1391 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein by name Kandipilli Srikantha Vara Prasad for partition of the suit schedule properties against his father and his stepsister i.e. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein. The plaintiff is the son of the second wife of the 1st defendant. It is stated that the 2nd defendant is the daughter of the first wife of the 1st defendant. In the said partition suit, the petitioners herein claiming themselves as illegitimate children of the 1st defendant sought to be impleaded on the ground that they were born to the 1st defendant through her mother Satyavathi and in fact the 1st defendant admitted in his written statement about their entitlement of share in the schedule properties. It is stated that the petitioners’ mother Smt.Satyavati was leading family life with the 1st defendant and the said fact was known to every member of the 1st defendant’s family and they are illegitimate children of the 1st defendant and therefore, they have a legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff filed counter opposing the said petition stating that the mother of the petitioners herein is legally wedded wife of a Port Trust employee and out of wedlock she gave birth not only the petitioners but also another male child by name Kanakesh. She deceived her previous husband and eloped with 1st defendant and taking advantage of the disputes between the plaintiff’s mother and 1st defendant, the petitioners herein have filed the said application without there being any iota of evidence about their claim of illegitimate children of the 1st defendant. The Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that there is not any finding by any competent court about their illegitimacy attributed with the 1st defendant and therefore, they cannot assume themselves the status of illegitimacy to come on record. I am of the opinion that when the petitioners are coming forward claiming themselves as illegitimate children of the 1st defendant and in fact, the 1st defendant admitted in his written statement about their entitlement of share in the schedule properties, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not proper and necessary parties to the suit. Their claim of illegitimacy is yet to be established during course of trial. The observations of the Court below that the petitioners have to obtain a declaration from any competent Court about the claim of illegitimate children of the 1st defendant cannot be accepted as in a suit for partition, it is open for the petitioners to establish and claim that they are illegitimate children of the 1st defendant and that they are legitimately entitled to a share in the schedule properties. Therefore, all questions as to whether the petitioners are illegitimate children of the 1st defendant or not and whether they were born through the 1st defendant or through some other are required to be proved and established in the suit. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the civil revision petition and accordingly, the same is allowed and the order impugned is set aside and the I.A.1285/2008 stands allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 18.11.2010 Dsr