A person can be added as a party to a suit if their presence is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

( 1 ) THIS Revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal Subordinate judge, Tirupati in I. A. No. 355/92 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for impleading him as the 6th defendant in the suit.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: One P. Govinda Reddy had three sons viz. , p. Gangi Reddi, Chengalraya Reddy and Subrahmanyam Reddy and one daughter, Rajamma. His wife s name is Kannamma. The said Govinda Reddy died on 14-10-1981. Plaintiff is the daughter of Gangi Reddy. Chengalraya reddy has no children and Subrahmanyam Reddy has three sons. The petitioner in the revision petition is the son of Subrahmanyam Reddy. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of plaint A and B Schedule properties. The suit is filed on the basis of a registered settlement deed dt. 25-3-1982 executed by her father P. Gangi Reddy. She impleaded the father, Chengalraya Reddy, subrahmanayam Reddy and grand-mother Kannamma. During the pendency of the suit, Kannamma died and her daughter, Rajamma was brought on record.

( 3 ) THE defence in the suit is that Govinda Reddy executed a will on 5-10-1981 under which he bequeathed the properties in favour of his wife viz. , Kannamma and she was given a life interest in the said properties. Under the will, after the death of Kannamma, remainder is given to the grandsons of Govinda Reddy i. e. , the sons of Subrahmanyam Reddy. The two sons of Subrahmanyamreddy are minors and the present petitioner became a major. Therefore, he filed a petition to implead him as a party to the suit.

( 4 ) THE petitioner also claimed the suit schedule properties not only under the will executed by the grandfather dt. 5-10-81, but also under the two wills executed by Kannamma i. e. , his grandmother on 7-11-1990 and 11-7-1991.

( 5 ) THE Prl. Subordinate Judge dismissed the application for impleading the petitioner, on the ground that unless the wills executed by Govinda Reddy and kannamma are proved, he cannot be treated as a necessary party. Holding as above, he rejected the petition. Hence the revision petition before me.

( 6 ) THE main contention of Sri P. S. Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a necessary party, as he has a direct interest in the suit schedule property in his dual capacity, firstly, that he is entitled to the property by virtue of the will executed by the grandfather dt. 5-10-1981 and also by virtue of the wills executed by his grandmother dt. 7-11-90 and 11-7-1991. Secondly he is entitled to come on record as a legal representative of Kannamma, who was impleaded as defendant No. 4 in the suit and who died during the pendency of the proceedings. He is entitled to come on record as a person interested in the subject matter of the suit even on the strength of the original will executed by the grandfather. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions reported in Razia Begum vs. Anwar Begum, Udit Narain Singh vs. Board of Revenue, b. Venkataperayya vs. G. Adilakshmamma, K. Savithri vs. Chinnayyamma, S. Kumar and others vs. The Super Hotel and Khaja Abdul vs. Mahabub Saheb. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the above decisions, he is entitled to come on record and the order of the Prl. Subordinate Judge is without jurisdiction.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the application to come on record is filed at a belated stage only, to drag on the proceedings. He also submitted that in case the will is proved, the petitioner will automatically get the properties and, therefore, he is not a necessary party, as the suit will be dismissed. Secondly, even if the will is not proved, he will get his share of the property, and, therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party.

( 8 ) THE question, therefore, is whether the petitioner is a necessary party, and whether the Prl. Subordinate Judge has failed to exerci