IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6039 of 2010 BETWEEN Shriram Rajendra Prasad. ... PETITIONER AND Dandu Pradyumna and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A. VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following order: ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.67 of 2008 against the order dated 23.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.656 of 2010. 2. The suit is filed by the petitioner herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.07.2005 in respect of the suit schedule property obtained from the father of the respondents 1 and 2. In the aforesaid suit, the daughters of the transferor have filed an application I.A.No.656 of 2010 stating that they have a share in the property as their father did not have absolute marketable title to transfer the suit schedule property. The said application is allowed by the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement of sale entered into by him and the father of the respondents 1 and 2 is prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act and as such, the daughters cannot have any say in the matter. 4. The respondents 1 and 2, daughters of the defendant in the suit/vendor of the plaintiff, claimed that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property and they have a share in the said property. It was also claimed that their father had no absolute marketable title to sell the suit schedule property, which would deprive them of their share in the property and therefore, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. In view of their claim, the Court below rightly allowed their application, as they are necessary parties to the suit. The question as to whether the defendant has absolute marketable title to transfer the suit schedule property to the petitioner and whether respondents 1 and 2 have interest in the property shall have to be gone into in the main suit. However, it is open to the petitioner/plaintiff to take up appropriate remedies, which may be available to him in law, consequent upon the impleadment of the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned calling for interference of this Court. The civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in Three days. (B/o) DSK