IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 676 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Revision Petition filed against the order dt.07.03.2024 made in I.A.No. 474/2013 in O.S.No. 283 of 2015, on the file of the V Additional District Judge at Tirupati. Between: Pathiputtur Gayathri, D/o late P.Ananda Reddy,aged 38 years. Private employee, residing at D.no.13-MIG, Housing Colony, Tuda Quarters, Mangalam,Tirupati Urban Mandal (Town), Tirupati district. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Vandela Ramana Reddy, s/o. Gangi Reddy, 3.No.3/884, Saraswathi Vidyamandir Road, proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Thellapaka Sivarami Reddy,, s/o. T. Venkata Reddy, D.No.8-4-428, Railway Colony, Tirupati. 3. Thai lapaka Chandrakala,, w/c. T. Venkataprasad Reddy, D.No.3/306 Raghavarajapuram Village, Railway Rodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 4. M.P. Govind Reddy, (died) 5. P. Malikarjuna Reddy,, S/o.late P. Govinda Reddy, D.No. 18-4-78, Railway Colony, Tirupati / 6. M.C.Sudhaka Reddy,, S/o.late P. Govinda Reddy Colony, Tirupati. No. 1-4-65, Railway ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 7()9A Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O S.No. 283 of 2015 the file of the V additional district judge at tirupati. on Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GANDAVALLI MAHESH Counsel for the Respondents : SRI NAGESWARA RAO V The Court made the following ORDER : w APHC010144332024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 676/2024 Between: Pathiputtur Gayathri ...PETITIONER AND Vandela Ramana Reddy and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.GANDAVALLI MAHESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.NAGESWARARAO V The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.676 of 2024 ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order, dated 07.03.2024, dismissing I.A.No.474 of 2023 in O.S.No.283 of 2015 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, at Tirupati, filed under Order I, rule 10 and Order VI, rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice to implead the legal representative/heir of the deceased 1®' defendant as proposed 4**^ defendant as necessary and proper party for proper adjudication of the suit and allow the plaintiffs to make necessary consequential amendments and if necessary, direct the plaintiffs to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased 1®* defendant. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance against the sole defendant/respondent No.4. Pending the suit, since the defendant died, the plaintiffs brought on record the 5*^ & 6'*^ respondents as defendants 2 & 3 as they are the sons of the sole defendant. 4. The maternal granddaughter of the deceased defendant filed I.A.No.474 of 2023 to implead her as the 4*^ defendant claiming that the plaintiffs are in collusion with the defendants 2 & 3 in not impleading the other legal representatives as parties to the suit. She stated that the w 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.676of 2024 h deceased maternal grandfather had four children, viz., two sons/defendants 2 and 3 and two daughters, her mother who has got two daughters, herself and her younger sister, P.Gowthami and another daughter, late M.P .Sharmila Kumari, i.e., her junior maternal aunt who has one daughter, T. Divya. All the legal heirs are necessarily to be added as defendants in the suit. The petition was opposed by the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs by filing counter of the 2'^'^ respondent, adopted by the respondent and the 3"'^ respondent, stating that these respondents are not aware of the relationship stated by the petitioner and that they had come to know that the deceased defendant died testate by executing a registered Will in favour of the respondent/D2 in respect of the plaint schedule property and further that if at ail there are other legal representatives left 5. by the deceased, the details ought to have been furnished by the other defendants. It is further contended that the petition was filed in active collusion with the other defendants and that the petitioner is not a class-l heir and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The 5’*^ respondent filed a separate counter opposing the petition and stating that the petition is not bona fide and was filed at a belated stage with a mala fide intention; that the petitioner had not properly explained the reasons for the delay in filing the petition except making 6. 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.676 of 2024 wild allegations against this respondent; that the plaintiffs had not added all the parties to the suit on demise of the sole defendant, and that the plaintiffs colluded with the present petitioner. 7. After hearing the contesting parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the proposed party can file a separate suit to agitate her right over the property and those rights cannot be decided in a suit filed for specific performance. It was further recorded that the deceased had executed a Will in favour of the 2"^^ defendant and in the cross-examination of DW1/D2, he had admitted that his father had executed a Will on 25.07.2007 and the same was acted upon. 8. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the legal representatives of a deceased party shall be brought on record however, as the plaintiffs had not taken such steps, the petitioner herself approached the Court, but without properly appreciating the necessity of impleading her, the petition was erroneously dismissed by the trial Court. It is further contended that the maternal granddaughter is a class-l heir, but the same was not duly appreciated by the trial th Court. He further submitted that in the counter filed by the 5 respondent/D2, there was no mention of the alleged Will of the deceased defendant nor was there any detail of the Will mentioned in 5 BSBJ C.R.P.No.676 of 2024 the counter of the plaintiffs and on the other hand, the 5^^ respondent in his counter stated that knowing fully well that the deceased had left the other legal representatives, the plaintiff had not added the other parties, and therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed adding of the petitioner who is a necessary party to the suit, being the legal representative of the sole defendant who died pending the suit. 1 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs are the masters of their suit and can choose the parties to the suit and they cannot be compelled to add any party. He further submitted that the order of the trial Court refers to the admission of DW1 as to the registered Will executed by the deceased defendant and therefore, if at all, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief in the absence of the other legal representatives, it is for the plaintiffs to face the consequences, petitioner can file a separate suit to agitate her right, if at all the Will is disputed and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. 10. He further submitted that the It is well settled that all the legal representatives of a deceased party to a proceeding shall be brought on record except barring a few exceptions where the interest of a non-party is duly represented by the other legal representatives on record. Here, in the present case, it is not such a case. Though the plaintiffs as well as DW1, as per the 11. 6 BSBJ C.R.P.No.676 of 2024 evidence, speak of the alleged Will of the deceased defendant, no such document had been brought on record in the evidence. As such, there is no valid proof of the said Will so far. In the absence of such proof, all the legal representatives shall be brought on record. Even if the plaintiffs prove a valid case in their favour, in the absence of all the necessary parties who can transfer title in favour of the plaintiffs, the relief of specific performance which is a discretionary relief cannot be granted, more particularly, in the absence of a party/defendant who has right over the property in issue to agitate right over the property. J 12. The petitioner is not claiming independent right over the property to file a separate suit. The petitioner is claiming right over the property through the deceased defendant. As such, being a legal representative. Instead of permitting her to be she is entitled to contest the suit. impleaded as a defendant, resistance was made by the plaintiffs and Though she filed an the relief was declined by the trial Court. application under Order I, rule 10 CPC as she claims to be a legal representative of the deceased defendant, her right to participate in the suit is covered by Order XXII, rule 3 CPC. The petitioner, being a necessary party to the suit, shall be allowed to come on record as prayed for by her. It is left to the plaintiffs and the trial Court about the necessity of the other legal representatives. 7 BSB,.J C.R.P.No.676 of 2024 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 07.03.2024, passed by V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in I.A.No.474 of 2023 in O.S.No.283 of 2015. Consequently, I.A.No.474 of 2023 shall stand allowed and the petitioner shall be impleaded as the 4‘^ defendant and the consequential amendments shall be carried out. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- A.VIJAYBABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The V Additional District Judge At Tirupati. 2. One CC to Sri. Gandavalli Mahesh Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Nageswara Rao V Advocate [OPUC] 4. THREE CD COPIES TAC HIGH COURT DATED : 10/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.676 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRP