THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3527 of 2009 Date of Order:18.03.2011 Between: Vemulapalli Rama Krishna Prasad ..Petitioner and Hanumanula Rapamma and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3527 of 2009 ORDER :- This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the orders, dated 16.06.2009, in I.A.No.347 of 2006 in O.S.No.2 of 2004, whereby the petition filed to implead the proposed party as 4th defendant in the suit, was dismissed. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff. The 1st and 3rd defendants are supporting the claim of the plaintiff and the petitioner, who is being the 2nd defendant, contested the claim of the plaintiff filed a counter claim to include item No.1 of the schedule properties shown in the counter claim, which was purchased by Lalitha Maheswara Rao with the income derived by the joint family properties in the name of the 3rd defendant nominally, which is also a joint family property. The 2nd defendant is entitled to 42/100th share, not only in the plaint schedule property but also in item No.1 of the schedule property measuring an extent of 600 square yards. The 3rd defendant sold an extent of 471.6 square yards of site out of the site of 600 square yards for a valuable consideration of Rs.41,02,200/- to the 4th respondent by executing a registered sale deed on 16.03.2006. Therefore, the 4th respondent, who purchased the property pending the suit, is a proper and necessary party to the suit. The lower court dismissed the I.A. only on the ground that the property covered by the sale in favour of the proposed party is not the subject matter of suit and it is stated to be self acquired property of the 3rd defendant and there is a dispute between the 2nd and 3rd defendants regarding the nature of the property. Section 52 of T.P.Act takes care of such alienation made during the pendency of the litigation. Therefore, the 4th respondent need not be impleaded. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The reasoning adopted by the lower court is erroneous for the simple reason that since all the joint family properties have not been included by the plaintiff in the suit for partition, it is always open for the defendants to seek inclusion of the properties standing in the name of the members of the joint family and the lower court can decide whether it is a self acquired property or liable to be partitioned treating it as a joint family property. In the counter claim filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant for partition of the property, which stands in the name of the 3rd defendant, it is stated that the 3rd defendant subsequently sold the said property to the proposed 4th respondent. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and to have complete adjudication between the parties, the 4th respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower court is set aside and the I.A. is allowed. The proposed respondent is at liberty to file written statement on amendment carried out to the plaint and the counter claim. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J March 18, 2011 Lmv