APHC010559472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2877 OF 2025 Between: 1. NARALA VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O RAMA KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCCULTIVATION, R/OCHINNAMUDIUM VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIUMMANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. NARALA LAKSHMI PRASANNA,, W/OVENKATESWARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCCULTIVATION, R/O CHINNAMUDIUM VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIUMMANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. NARALA REVANTH REDDY,, S/OVENKATESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS. MINOR, REP BY HIS FATHER VENKATESWARA REDDY, R/O CHINNAMUDIUM VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIUMMANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. NARALA RAMI REDDY,, S/O RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCCULTIVATION, R/O CHINNAMUDIUM VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIUMMANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 5. NARALA MADHAVI,, W/O RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCCULTIVATION, R/O CHINNAMUDIUM VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIUMMANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. NARALA PRANITH KUMAR REDDY,, S/ONARALARAMIREDDY AGED ABOUT7 YEARS. MINOR REP BY HIS FATHER NARALARAMIREDDY, R/O CHINNAMUDIUM VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIUMMANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NARALA LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, AS/O LATE RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCTEACHER, R/O D.NO. 1/1694, KANDIPALEM, YERRAMUKAPALLI, KADAPA,KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. NARALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUTABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCCULTIVATION, R/O D.NO. 1/81, CHINNAMUDIAM VILLAGE, PEDDAMUDIAMMANDAL, KADAPA DIST. 3. NARALA NARAYANAMMA, W/O LATE RAMA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. REP BY NEXT FRIEND SON NAMELY YERASIVENKATA RAMI REDDY S/O LATE RAMA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/OAMADALA VILLAGE, KOILAKUNTLAMANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL The Court made the following Order : The present revision is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 03.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.513 of 2023 in O.S.No.47 of 2019 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit is filed suppressing true facts and without including the properties which are liable for partition; that 1st petitioner herein is son of 1st defendant and other petitioners are co- sharers and coparceners, and they have share in the plaint schedule properties and other properties sought to be included in the suit, and in order to avoid of multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties and all the properties liable for partition, the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit, but these aspects have not been considered by the trial Court in right perspective. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for 1st respondent that as 2nd respondent/defendant No.1, being the head of the branch of the petitioners, is already on record, and the petitioners will get shares out of the properties allotted to 2nd respondent/defendant No.1, the petitioners are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit; that all the properties liable for partition are included in the suit, and hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. Perused the record. 6. 1st respondent is the plaintiff, and respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 1 and 2, in the Suit. The petitioners are proposed parties, who sought to come on record as defendants 3 to 10 in the suit. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as per their array in the suit. 7. In the case on hand, plaintiff is younger brother of 1st defendant. 2nd defendant is their sister. The suit is filed against defendants 1 and 2 seeking to pass a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties and separate possession of his share and for mesne profits. The suit is at the stage of trial. The petitioners/ proposed parties filed I.A.No.513 of 2022 in the said suit, seeking to permit them to come on record in the suit as defendants 3 to 10. It is their case that 1st defendant is father, and plaintiff is junior paternal uncle, of 1st petitioner herein; that proposed defendant Nos. 6, 8 and 9 are his younger brothers and proposed defendant No.10 is his mother (wife of 1st defendant), and the proposed defendant Nos.4 and 5 are his wife and son respectively and proposed defendant No.7 is wife of proposed defendant No.6. It is their specific case that the plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing the true facts without adding proper and necessary parties as well as properties; that 1st petitioner/proposed defendant No.3 has title, possession and enjoyment over some of the plaint schedule properties. It is the specific case of the petitioners/ proposed parties that some of the plaint schedule properties are self-acquired properties of their father-1st defendant and they alone have share in them and they are not liable for partition. It is their specific case that some of the plaint schedule properties are self-acquired properties of 1st petitioner, and that neither the plaintiff nor defendants have any right over them, but the same were wrongly included in the plaint schedule. It is their specific case that there are some more properties in the name of the plaintiff and his family members, which are joint family properties, and without adding the same, the very purpose of filing the suit will be defeated. 8. A necessary party is one, in whose absence, the lis involved in the suit cannot be adjudicated effectively, whereas a proper party is one whose presence helps the Court to decide the lis completely. It is settled law that in a suit for partition, failure to include the necessary parties may lead to dismissal of the suit. It is also settled that all joint family properties constitute the subject matter of the partition suit, and self-acquired property of any member of the family are not liable for partition among the coparceners of the family. Therefore, in the light of the specific pleas raised by the petitioners, as stated supra, in order to have an effective adjudication and to enable the trial Court to pass an effective decree, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners herein are necessary parties to the suit. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the Order dated 03.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.513 of 2023 in O.S.No.47 of 2019 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur. Consequently, I.A.No.513 of 2023 stands partly allowed, only in respect of permitting the petitioners to come on record as defendants 3 to 10 in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs of the C.R.P. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 18.03.2026 KK/DRK