ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 04.08.2021, passed in I.A.No.851 of 2019 in O.S.No.174 of 2011 on the file of the Court of XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, filed under Order XXII Rule 2 and Section 151 CPC praying to record that the petitioners are the only legal representatives of the deceased 6th respondent/defendant.

2. Heard Sri K.S. Bala Sai Teja, learned counsel representing Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and Mrs. K.V. Vani, learned counsel for respondents/defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.174 of 2011 seeking partition of plaint schedule properties into five equal shares and for allotment of two such shares to the 1st plaintiff, one such share to the plaintiffs 2 & 3 and the defendant. The 2nd defendant is added, as he is the purchaser of one of the schedule properties. The defendants 3 & 4 are the children of the 1st defendant through the 5th defendant. The 6th defendant is added as legal representative of the 1st defendant, who died on 06.08.2019 during the pendency of the lis. During her life time, the plaintiffs looked after her well and she resided along with them. The 6th defendant was added in the suit consequent on the death of the 1st defendant, in the capacity of mother of the 1st defendant, for the purpose of representing the contentions of the 1st defendant as his legal representative. Thus, the 6th defendant was only a legal representative of the 1st defendant in the suit and therefore, the rights and liabilities of the legal representatives cannot be adjudicated. During the life time of the 1st defendant, he executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of part of one of the item of the plaint schedule property as well as the 1st defendant also executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 3rd defendant in respect of one of the items of the plaint schedule property. As such, defendants 2 & 3 are the legal representatives 1st of the defendant to represent the contentions of the defendant. The 6th defendant on her appearance, assailed with the plaintiffs and after her death, the contentions of the 1st defendant are being continued by defendants 2 & 3 only as the 6th defendant assailed with the plaintiffs.

4. Legal representative of a deceased original party should be added only to the extent of continuance of the contention of the deceased party but not to raise the rights and liabilities of the legal representative of the deceased party. As such, the mother of the 2nd plaintiff, being legally wedded wife and the 2nd plaintiff and his brother being the legitimate children of the 1st defendant are the only legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant. Therefore, 6th the other children of the defendant shall not be the legal representatives of the 1st defendant to continue his contentions and they cannot be added as legal representatives of the deceased 6th defendant. The other children of the 6th defendant, 1st defendant and deceased 6th defendant have partitioned their interest under exhibit A1. As such, the other children of the 6th defendant cannot be legal representative to the contentions of the 1st defendant. Hence, the present petition to record that the plaintiffs are the only legal representatives of the deceased 6th defendant in the above suit.

5. The 2nd defendant filed counter denying the averments made by the plaintiffs and contending that if the plaintiffs successfully prove that the 1st defendant died intestate, his mother 6th defendant also acquires share in the properties of the 1st defendant and as such, acquiring share under the succession has nothing to do with previous partition between 6th defendant and her children. As such, when the 6th defendant who is a co-sharer as per the pleadings of plaintiffs died intestate, her legal heirs are certainly necessary pa