APHC010520562023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2909/2023 Between: Adhikari Thulasi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND A Prabhakar Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C JHANSI RANI 2. HARSHA VARDHANA RAO C 3. P LAKSHMANA RAO 4. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI 5. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY 6. P NAGENDRA REDDY The Court made the following Order: The present revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 17.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.213 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of Defendant No.7 in suit O.S.No.54 of 1959, which was filed for partition. Upon contest, the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 07.06.1982, wherein the 1st respondent filed an application vide I.A.No.982 of 2014, seeking to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the said application to divide the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and the Commissioner subsequently filed a report specifying the shares of the parties. 3. At that juncture, the petitioners filed an application vide I.A.No.213 of 2023, seeking to implead themselves as party respondents to the final decree proceedings, claiming that they are the coparceners and are entitled to share in the suit schedule properties apart from what was gifted to their mother under a gift deed executed by one of the bothers of their mother. Since the petitioners raised the plea with regard to merits, the trial Court, while dealing with the implead application, dealt with the merits of the matter and eventually held that the petitioners are not entitled to any share as per amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, excluding the properties given to their mother and dismissed the application. 4. The said application was assisted by the respondents by filing counter affidavit stating that the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court attained finality since no appeal was filed against the same. They further contended that, the Advocate Commissioner was also appointed and in fact he has also filed report delineating the shares between the parties to the suit. They further contended that the application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of the subsequent developments taken place in the final decree proceedings. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. At the outset, the trial Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter in as much as the application was filed seeking to implead the petitioners as party respondents to the final decree proceedings. Though, incidentally the petitioners have also raised with regard to their entitlement over the suit schedule properties over and above what has been given to their mother. As long as the preliminary decree is not under challenge, the question of agitating the rights of the petitioners in final decree proceedings does not arise. Since the petitioners are the legal heirs of defendant No.7, they are entitled to come on record so as to get their shares as per the preliminary decree. The counsel for the respondents also did not object for the impleadment of the petitioners in the final decree proceedings, however, they objected to the claim of the petitioners over the suit schedule properties over and above what had been granted to their mother in the preliminary decree. 8. As already stated supra, though the trial Court went into the merits of the matter with regard to their entitlement, the same is unnecessary for the purpose of deciding the present application. Hence, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside by permitting the petitioners to come on record in the final decree proceedings. It is also made clear that the observation made in respect of the entitlement of the petitioners over the suit schedule properties are also set aside. 9. With the above observations, the present revision petition is Allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 24th January, 2025 Cbn/Dsb 44 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2909 of 2023 24th January, 2025 Cbn/Dsb