This civil revision petition is filed against the orders dated 23.07.2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam in I.A.No.384 of 2006 in OS.No.41 of 2006.

2. The revision petitioners, who are the third parties to the suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam filed I.A.No.384 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC contending that they are necessary parties to the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against the respondent No.3 for partition and that they have to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. It was submitted by them in the said interlocutory application that unless they are impleaded as defendants, they will be deprived of their rights in the schedule mentioned properties and they will be subjected to multiplicity of litigation. After making an enquiry into the said I.A., the learned trial Court dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-third parties preferred the present revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel• on record.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 claiming to be the sons of the respondent No.3 filed the suit for partition for division of the schedule mentioned properties which are said to be of Hindu Joint family into three equal shares and to allot one each share to them. It is a matter of record that Pad ala Narasinga Rao, the third respondent had two wives. The first wife is Ramanamma and the second wife is Mahalakshmi. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondents 1 and 2 are the sons of respondent No.3 through his first wife, whereas the revision petitioners are the children through his second wife. It is the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that since the marriage between the third respondent and Mahalakshmi was performed during the subsistence of marriage with his first wife Ramanamma, the alleged second marriage is void and the status of Mahalakshmi is only that of concubine and consequently, the status of the revision petitioners is that of illegitimate children. According to them, the revision petitioners being illegitimate children are Hot entitled for any share in the schedule mentioned properties, which are their ancestral properties.

5. The third respondent in the course of the written statement filed by him before the trial Court submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 are his sons and one Anuradha, is daughter through his wife Ramanamma and also submitted that he married Mahalakshmi with the consent of his first wife Ramanamma about 50 years prior to the filing of the written statement and the revision petitioners are his children through his second wife Mahalakshmi. According to him, the revision petitioners and the respondents are entitled for equal share in the property and the plaintiffs can claim only l/7th share each, but not 1/3rd as claimed by them in the suit.

6. The contention urged by the revision petitioners before the learned trial Court is that the marriage of their mother Mahalakshmi was performed with the third respondent about 50 years back i.e. prior to coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 and the said marriage was performed with the consent of the first wife Ramanamma and further a gazette notification dated 11.04.1959 was made in the official gazette changing the surname of their mother from Vuppu to Padala and there afterwards her mother was called as Padala Mahalakshmi only. The marriage according to the revision petitioners is perfectly valid and that they are born out of lawful wedlock and they are entitled to claim equal share with that of the respondents 1 and 2 in the schedule mentioned properties. It is also their contention that the suit is not maintainable since they and the sister of the respondents 1 and 2 by name Anuradha, who are necessary parties are not added as parties to the suit. According to them without their presence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. They further submitted that a plain reading of the plaint indicates that the properties are the self-acquired properties of the third