ORDER :

1. These three revision petitions, under Section 115 CPC, are filed aggrieved by the docket order, dated 06.11.2021, passed in E.P.Nos.72 of 2021, 71 of 2021 and 70 of 2021 in O.S.No.650 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

2. Heard Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/JDrs., 3 & 4 and Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/DHr., in C.R.P.No.1328 of 2021 and Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/DHr., in the other two revisions. The respondents 2 & 3 are shown to be not necessary parties to these revision petitions.

3. The facts leading to filing of these revision petitions, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The respondents 2 & 3/defendants 1 & 2 are the children of late Chalamaiah. The father of the plaintiff died intestate on 05.06.1999. The schedule property is the self acquired property of the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the schedule property. When the plaintiff demanded for partition, the 1st defendant claimed that he is also entitled to a share. The 3rd defendant was married woman having a son through her husband who died after the marriage. During the life time of father of the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant developed intimacy with the father of the plaintiff and taking advantage of the same, defendants 3 and 4 are falsely claiming the plaint schedule property and trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiff, and defendants 1 and 2. As the defendants are not cooperating for amicable division, the plaintiff filed the suit for division of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for separate possession of one such share to the plaintiff from the obstruction from anyone particularly, defendant 3 & 4.

(b) The 1st defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the 2nd defendant, denying the plaint averments and contending that the defendants 3 & 4 set up a forged Will and are claiming rights under the forged Will and entered into possession of the plaint schedule properties subsequent to filing of the suit. The 4th defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the 3rd defendant, contending that the schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of defendants 3 and 4 and that the court fee paid is not correct. The plaintiff’s father has got two sons and two daughters. The second son, Venugopalarao, went on adoption. Chalamaiah performed the marriages of plaintiff, defendants 1 & 2 and purchased properties in their names with his money. He bequeathed the remaining property in favour of defendants 3 and 4 by executing Will, dated 27.01.1995, in a sound and disposing state of mind. The said Chalamaiah died on 05.06.1999. Thus, by virtue of the said Will, defendants 3 & 4 are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The 3rd defendant is the wife of said Chalamaiah and the schedule property was given for her maintenance. She is the absolute owner of the property and the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 are not co-sharers. The suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

4. On contest, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property along with defendants 1 and 2, and the suit against defendants 3 and 4 is dismissed. The appeal filed by the 4th defendant in A.S.No.2 of 2006 is dismissed, by decree & judgment, dated 31.12.2009. The second appeal filed in S.A.No.247 of 2010 was also dismissed confirming the decree & judgment in A.S.No.2 of 2006. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.1160 of 2006 for passing of final decree in pursuance of preliminary decree and to allot 1/3rd share to the petitioner in the plaint schedule property along with defendants 1 & 2. The trial Court allowed the petition allotting item No.1 of the petition schedule property