1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.16-07-2013 in I.A.No.188 of 2013 in O.S.No.140 of 2009 of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore.

2. The petitioner herein is 2nd defendant in the suit. The said suit had been filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 originally against the father of 6th respondent by name Ramanaiah alleging that the said Ramanaiah executed an agreement of sale dt.02-11-1995 in favour of late Putturu Kallaiah, who is the paternal grand father of respondent Nos.2 to 5. They claimed that under the said agreement of sale, late Kallaiah had been put in possession of the subject land which is an extent of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.12/3 of Gurivindapudi village, Manubolu Mandal of Nellore District and that under a registered Will dt.22-4-1996 executed by him, the said property devolved on them after the death of Kallaiah on 04-12-1999.

3. The said suit was transferred to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Nellore and renumbered as O.S.No.140 of 2009 initially and later again renumbered as O.S.No.181 of 2014 on transfer to the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, Nellore District. Therefore, in this order, O.S.No.140 of 2009 would be referred to as O.S.No.181 of 2014.

4. In the said suit, the 1st respondent herein filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead him as 4th defendant. He alleged that on 11-09-2003, Venkata Ratnam, father of respondent Nos.2 and 3, Kondaiah, father of 4th respondent and Mathanaiah, father of 5th respondent had executed an agreement of sale in his favour and received consideration of Rs.1 Lakh from him as advance; thereafter respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mathanaiah, father of 5th respondent executed two registered sale deeds dt.10-07-2006 in his favour in respect of an extent Ac.2.00 of land out of the suit extent of Ac.3.00 and put him in possession of the property on the same day. He further alleged that father of 4th respondent by name Kondaiah obtained permission from the Principal District Court, Nellore for sale of the remaining Ac.1.00 of land which fell to the share of 4th respondent, a minor, by filing O.P.No.377 of 2007, and it was allowed on 11-11-2008. He therefore contended that out of extent Ac.3.00 cents, which is subject matter of O.S.No.181 of 2014, since he has purchased Ac.2.00 under registered sale deeds dt.10-07-2006 as referred to above, and since these facts have been suppressed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 in O.S.No.181 of 2014, he has to be considered as bonafide purchaser of a portion of the suit schedule property and therefore he is necessary party to the suit and he may be impleaded so that he can protect his right, title and interest in the suit schedule property.

5. This application was opposed by petitioner, who alleged that the suit schedule property was purchased by his father Ramanaiah under registered sale deed dt.28-08-1968 and that he had executed a registered settlement deed dt.28-12-2005 in favour of petitioner. He further contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 cannot place any reliance on the Will alleged to have been executed by Kallaiah, under which they claimed to have a vested reminder and that the said Will is invalid and not binding on petitioner since Kallaiah himself had no title to the plaint schedule property. He therefore contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had no right either to execute an agreement of sale or execute a sale deed in favour of 1st respondent and 1st respondent would not get any right over the plaint schedule property since his vendors have no title.

6. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 also filed a counter opposing the impleadment of 1st respondent alleging that 1st respondent had filed a suit O.S.No.22 to 2005 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt.11-09-2003, but the same had been dismissed and an appeal A.S.No.100 of 2012 against the said judgment had been filed by 1st respondent before the Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judg