1. Heard Mr. H.Venugopal for revision petitioners and Mr.D.Jagan Mohan Reddy for respondents.

2. Defendant Nos.19 and 20 in O.S.No.133 of 2001 in the Court of the I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, are the revision petitioners. The revision is directed against the order dated 13.10.2009 in I.A.No.3440 of 2008.

3. Revision petitioners filed I.A.No.3440 of 2008 praying to transpose revision petitioners/defendants 19 and 20 as plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. The trial Court through the order impugned in the revision rejected the prayer. Hence, the revision.

4. The circumstances relevant for disposal of the revision are as follows:

5. One Syed Kareem/respondent No.1 herein filed O.S.No.133 of 2001 against respondents 2 to 19 herein for partition and separate possession of 1/11th share of suit schedule property and allot the share to him. The suit schedule property consists of landed property admeasuring Acs.37.16 gts in Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On 07.08.2001, the plaintiff executed registered sale deed in respect of 1/11th undivided share in the suit schedule property in favour of revision petitioners. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.2716 of 2003 under order XXII Rule 10 CPC to implead them as defendants 19 and 20 in O.S.No.133 of 2001. On 06.11.2003, the application was allowed and the revision petitioners were brought on record as defendants 19 and 20 in the suit. It is alleged in the application filed for transposition that the revision petitioners had come to know of the demise of sole plaintiff. The legal representatives of deceased-plaintiff have not evinced interest to come on record and prosecute the suit, for the suit schedule property had already been sold in favour of revision petitioners, and GPA was executed in their favour. The revision petitioners being assignees of undivided interest in suit schedule property have substantial rights to work out, by stepping into the shoes of deceased-plaintiff, and have been advised to get themselves transposed as plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in the suit and continue the proceedings. It is further stated that if the prayer for transposition is accepted, the parties to the lis are not subjected to prejudice.

6. Respondents 2 to 19 filed counter-affidavit and opposed the prayer of revision petitioners for transposition as plaintiffs 2 and 3. Firstly, it is objected that except the legal representatives of deceased-plaintiff, no other person can come on record as plaintiff in the suit. On the allegations on the knowledge of the demise of plaintiff, it is replied are improbable and the petitioners, being the GPAs of deceased-plaintiff, are expected to know the demise of the principal. It is further denied that sale deed dated 07.08.2001 was executed by deceased-plaintiff in favour of revision petitioners. The instant suit, with the demise of plaintiff, is abated. The counter refers to a few circumstances on claim to property being GPA of defendants 2 to 19 under various transactions and the value of the property etc. This Court is of the view that reference to these averments stated in the counter-affidavit is unnecessary for the disposal of the instant revision and hence not considered.

7. The trial Court, on these averments, framed the following point for consideration:

Whether the petitioners/defendants 19 and 20 are entitled to transpose themselves as plaintiffs 2 and 3 due to the death of the sole plaintiff?

7. The trial Court had accepted the objections raised in the counter-affidavit and held that as seen from the defence taken by respondents/defendants, they have not admitted that the deceased-plaintiff is a shareholder in the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants have set up that even by the date of filing of the suit, the deceased-plaintiff sold away the suit schedule property and thereby denied the share of deceased-plaintiff for claiming partition of suit schedule property. There