APHC010579332022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2148/2022 Between: Bokka Vijaya Nagalakshmi ...PETITIONER AND Bokka Peda Manikyam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALE VIJAYA RAJU 2. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2148 of 2022 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 22.08.2022 in I.A.No.1129 of 2017 in A.S.No.55 of 2015 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Bhhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2. The Petitioner is a third party to the appeal. 3. The facts leading to filing of the appeal are as follows:- The Respondent No.7/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.122 of 2007 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram for partition of suit schedule property. As per the claim, the Respondent No.1 is the mother, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters of Respondent No.1 and Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are the sons of Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.7/Plaintiff filed the suit contending that the suit schedule property of an extent of Ac.0.80 cents situated in R.S.No.214/1A in Gunupudi, Bhimavaram Town was owned by her father as he had died intestate the parties to the suit succeeded to the property. It is the case of Respondent No.7/Plaintiff that she is entitled to 1/8th share in the suit schedule property. 4. The Defendant No.2/Respondent No.1 filed her written statement supporting the case of the Plaintiff. The claim was opposed by the Defendant No.7 i.e. Respondent No.6 herein by filing a detailed written statement, which was adopted by Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 6. As per the written statement of Defendant No.7, the suit schedule property was partitioned on 25.05.1985 by the Defendant Nos.6 & 7 i.e. Respondent Nos.5 & 6 being the sons of late Bokka Veera Swamy. The said suit on contest was decreed by the trial Court vide Judgment and Decree on 3 18.09.2015, aggrieved thereby, the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed appeal A.S.No.55 of 2015 before the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram. 5. During pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner filed I.A.No.1129 of 2017 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to come on record as party-respondent to the appeal. The Petitioner is the daughter of Defendant No.7/Respondent No.6 herein. As per the application filed by the Petitioner, her father i.e. Defendant No.7 had married Lakshmi Bai in the year 1986 and she was born in the year 1990 and her sister was born in the year 1993. Since her father had succeeded to the extent of Ac.0.40 cents of land in the partition dated 25.05.1985 she is entitled for allotment of her 1/3rd share and it was in that context the application was filed to implead her in the appeal. 6. The trial Court on contest rejected the application on the ground that the Petitioner cannot claim share in the schedule property since she was born in the year 1990 i.e. after the partition between the Defendant Nos.6 & 7 on 25.05.1985. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Kale Vijaya Raju, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. 8. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has got a share in the suit schedule property since her father i.e. Defendant No.7 had got his share of Ac.0.40 cents in the partition dated 25.05.1985 and therefore the Petitioner is entitled to be brought on record as proper and necessary party to the appeal. 4 9. There is no representation for the Plaintiff/Respondent No.7 though notice was served and the counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 did not seriously oppose the application. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the issue in the suit is whether at all there was a partition in the year 1985 and even if there was partition whether the same would be binding on the sisters of Defendant Nos.6 & 7 considering the amendments to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 11. In that context, the claim of the Petitioner is depending on the outcome of the defence taken by the contesting Defendants i.e. Defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 and 7 vis-a-vis the plea that the Defendant Nos.6 & 7 have succeeded to the property after the death of their father and partitioned their properties. The plea of Petitioner can be urged subject to the outcome of the appeal vis-a-vis against the Defendant No.7 and her family members and at this stage, it is not appropriate to implead the Petitioner in this appeal as she is neither a necessary party or proper party any fault with the order passed by the trial Court. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 06.02.2025 IS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2148 of 2022 Date: 06.02.2025 IS