HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3042 OF 2010 Between: Bobbili Apparao … Petitioner And Bobbili Koteswara Rao and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3042 OF 2010 ORDER:- Petitioner, who is a third party to the suit O.S.No.135 of 2007 filed for partition of the suit schedule property between the plaintiffs and the defendants, filed I.A.No.914 of 2009 to implead him as a party- defendant in the above suit. On dismissal of the said I.A., by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram through the impugned order, dated 02.07.2010 the present revision has been filed. The petitioner filed the impugned I.A. contending that the grandfather of the petitioner Bobbili Apparao and the father of the plaintiffs Bobbili Pydiah are brothers and they constitute a joint family. According to the petitioner, they jointly purchased Ac.1-15 cents of land in survey No.96/3 of Veeravaram village under registered sale deeds, dated 01.02.1956 and 23.05.1973 and since then they are in joint possession of the property during their lifetime and after their demise their legal heirs were in joint possession. The petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said land (undivided Ac.0-57½ cents as absolute owner being the legal heir of Bobbili Apparao and undivided Ac.0-57½ cents as a tenant along with Lakshmana Kumar). During the lifetime of Bobbili Buchamma, she leased out her half share in the above survey number, which fell on her after the demise of her husband and he used to pay makhta to her. After her demise, her grandson-2nd defendant has been collecting the maktha from him. Therefore, he is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.01-15 cents of land in survey No.96/3 of Veeravaram village. Prior to filing of the petition he was in the above land. Bobbili Koteswara Rao suddenly tried to interfere with the possession threatening to handover the crop to the receiver appointed in the suit filed by him. It is further contended that he is the legal heir of late Apparao and hence, he is a proper and necessary party to the suit. The 1st respondent filed counter opposing the petition contending that there is no joint ness in any of the properties between the grandfather of the petitioner and the father of the 1st and 2nd respondents. The grandfather of the petitioner-Bobilli Apparao had two sons viz., Kotarao, Nageswararao and two daughters viz., Akkamma and Ramakrishna. Among them Kotarao died. Petitioner is the son of said Kotarao and he had one daughter by name Phani Kumari. The 2nd son of Appa Rao by name Nageswararao is alive. He had a son by name Trinadha, who died after marriage and succeeded by his wife and children. Nageswararao had three daughters by name Laxmi, Appayyamma and Jayamma. If really the property of Apparao is still joint, the petitioner will not become absolute owner of Ac.0-57½ cents of land and all the legal heirs of late Apparao will become sharers. The petitioner suppressing the said fact filed the above I.A. It is further pleaded that the property jointly purchased by the father of the 1st and 2nd respondents i.e., the plaintiffs and the grandfather of the petitioner, was partitioned long back and there is no joint property. The trial court dismissed the I.A. holding that originally the grandfather of the petitioner Apparao and his brother Pydiah jointly purchased an extent of Ac.01-15 cents of land in survey No.96/3. The petitioner along with the other legal heirs of Apparao will have right in undivided Ac.0-57 ½ cents of land and they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. As per the schedule of the suit item No.2, the western boundary is Bobbili Apparao. The boundaries of the schedule property clearly shows that the property was already partitioned between the parties. If really late Apparao has got interest or share in the properties, all the legal heirs would come to the Court seeking relief in the schedule property and the petitioner himself alone will not have any right and accordingly, dismissed the I.A. Even assuming that the schedule property was not partitioned between the grandfather of the petitioner representing half share and his brother Pydaiah representing half share, in a suit for partition among the branch of Pydiah, the petitioner is not a necessary party. Under the garb of a preliminary decree or final decree, if they want to divide the entire property, the petitioner can always resist the division by putting up his claim in the suit schedule property and he will have an independent right over the half share. If the schedule property was not divided as alleged by the petitioner, by this time he could have filed a suit for partition to divide the property by impleading all the necessary parties and sought for clubbing of both the suits for a joint trial. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the trial court in dismissing the I.A., does not call for any intereference. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 24th September 2010 lmv