THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4392 OF 2009 22nd September 2009 Between: Basava Lakshmikanthamma, W/o.Late Satyanarayana, 60 years, House Wife, R/o.Ananthapalli Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. …PETITIONER AND 1. Basava Chitti Raju, S/o.Late Satyanarayana, 35 years, Cultivation, R/o.Ananthapalli Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. And three others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4392 OF 2009 ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.54 of 2003 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, against his father, the deceased- second respondent and his brother-third respondent, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The second respondent filed written statement contesting the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the second respondent died. His two sons, namely, respondents 1 and 3 were already on record. His wife, the petitioner herein and the daughter-the fourth respondent, were brought on record. The petitioner intended to file an independent written statement. For that, she filed I.A.No.1018 of 2009 under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to receive the additional written statement. The trial Court rejected the same. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Heard Sri S.D.Gowd, learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit was filed by the first respondent for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Much would depend upon the nature of the properties in the hands of the first respondent namely, whether they are self-acquired properties or joint or ancestral properties. The petitioner cannot have an independent say in the matter, particularly, when the second respondent has already filed his written statement. She is bound by the plea raised by the second respondent. It is stated that the second respondent executed a Will in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the suit schedule properties in her favour. Even this question is not immediately relevant. The reason is that it is only when the properties are held to be self-acquired by the second respondent, that the Will would assume significance. On the other hand, if they are found to be ancestral or joint properties, the Will becomes totally irrelevant, if not untenable. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order in I.A. It is, however, made clear that, in case, the petitioner intends to execute the Will said to have been executed in her favour, the disposal of I.A. would not come in her way. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 22nd September 2009 RRB