HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1572 OF 2009 DATE:11-03-2011 BETWEEN Annavajjula Nanchara Vara Prasad …Petitioner AND Sarva Kamala & others …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1572 OF 2009 ORDER: It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the third defendant in the suit in O.S.No.80 of 1998 filed for partition of the suit schedule properties left by Annavajjula Ramajogaiah. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 in the main suit are the brothers of the plaintiff and all of them are sons of Annavajjula Ramajogaiah. The respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the daughters of Annavajjula Ramajogaiah, on coming to know of the partition suit filed by their brother, filed the impugned I.A.No.274 of 2009 to implead them as defendants in the suit. The petitioner-third defendant filed a counter affidavit opposing the said I.A. stating that the third respondent herein had already expressed her disinterestedness in the schedule property in O.S.No.89 of 1990 stating that she relinquished her share in the estate of her father and she also stated that their father executed a will in respect of the schedule properties wherein she expressed her disinterestedness over the suit schedule property, and therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are not necessary and proper parties to the suit. The lower Court by the impugned order allowed the I.A., against which the present revision is filed. The petitioner did not deny the relationship with the respondents 1 to 3, who are his sisters. Though the petitioner pleaded that the third respondent relinquished her right over the suit schedule property, the aspect whether she can relinquish the rights of other two sisters or not can be gone into in the main suit. Since the rights of the respondents 1 to 3 herein over the suit schedule property will be affected, they are necessary and proper parties. The judgment in Rajendranagar Residents Welfare Association, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam v. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam (2009 (2) ALD 665) on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance is not at all relevant to the facts of the case on hand. The discretion exercised by the lower Court in ordering the impugned I.A. does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. It is always open for the petitioner to file additional written statement after filing the written statements by the respondents 1 to 3 herein. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 11, 2011 Tsr.