HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3294 OF 2007 Dated: 12.11.2010 Between: Narra Babu Rajendra Prasad. ..Petitioner And Nandigama Rupadevi .. Respondent This Court made the following HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3294 OF 2007 ORDER: This is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to revise the order of the I Additional District Judge, Krishna, in I.A.No.1/2007 in A.S.No.170 of 2006, dated 6.3.2007. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2002 for possession of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.0.21 cents in R.S.No.425 /5 situated in Rajanagar Church Road in Gannavaram village. The said suit was decreed and the revision petitioner- defendant was directed to deliver possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No:170 of 2006 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Krishna and the same is pending. At this stage, the petitioner-defendant filed the above I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement to the effect that the suit is not maintainable for non joinder of a necessary party viz., G. Leelavathi, the mother of G. Bala Krishna Murthy, who is the father of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court dismissed the above application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the suit property belongs to Narra Seetharamaiah, who is the father of paternal grand mother of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the schedule property fell to the share of the said Seetharamaiah and he executed a registered will dated 17.9.1969 in favour of the father of the plaintiff and on the death of the said Seetharamaiah, the father of the plaintiff became absolute owner and he enjoyed the property till his death on 9.11.1975. When the plaintiff was aged about 4 years, the petitioner-defendant claims to have purchased the schedule property from G. Bala Krishna Murthy. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the schedule property from the defendant claiming to be the successor of Bala Krishna Murthy after his death. The defendant did not take any plea at the earliest point of time to the effect that the mother of G. Bala Krishna Murty viz., Leelavathi is a necessary party and the plaintiff herself is not entitled to claim the property. The main grievance of the defendant is G. Leelavathi is a necessary party to the suit and she is having share in the property in question on the death of G. Bala Krishna Murty. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the property in question, but not for declaration of her title over the same. In this regard, having regard to the nature of the proceedings on hand, the relief sought by the defendant to add the grand mother of the plaintiff as a necessary party, amounts to alteration of nature of the proceedings and also a separate cause of action. Admittedly, the said Leelavathi is the grandmother of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that the said Leelavathi is having a share and it is the joint property. If that were so, the suit for recovery of property from a third party can be filed by any of the member and all the members need not be included to the proceedings. In view of the foregoing discussion, I feel that the order under revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 12 November, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3294 OF 2007 12.11.2010