ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners, is directed against the order, dated 27.08.2019, of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, passed in IA.No.1205 of 2016 in OS.No.220 of 2011 filed under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to permit them to come on record as plaintiffs 2 & 3 in the suit and to amend the plaint as in the petition.

2. Heard Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/petitioners/proposed parties and Sri Chilurkuru Narendra Babu, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants 1 & 2. The 3rd respondent is the plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the revision petitioners/proposed parties, plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The facts that lead the revision petitioners to file the present interlocutory application seeking their impleadment as plaintiffs 2 & 3 in the suit, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The plaintiff is the father. 1st defendant is the paternal aunt of the revision petitioners and 2nd defendant is paternal aunt’s husband. The paternal grandfather of the revision petitioners executed a registered Will, dated 05.05.2006, and executed a Codicil, dated 01.08.2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff, defendants and the revision petitioners jointly executed a Memorandum of Understanding on 24.11.2008 along with Kanakamedala Sandhya to resolve the issues relating to their movable and immovable properties in an amicable manner. Their grandfather obliged the request of the defendants and paid an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-to the defendants subject to adjustment at the time of execution of the document in favour of the revision petitioners by the defendants. Their grandfather passed away on 26.10.2006. Thereafter, due to misunderstandings, the defendants avoided execution of the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. The revision petitioners are entitled for execution of a sale deed in their favour by the defendants in terms of the family agreement, as they already received the entire sale consideration.

(b) The grandfather of the revision petitioners parted with a lot more than the entire sale consideration with a view to get the sale deed registered in favour of the revision petitioners, but the defendants, all along, failed to honour the commitment despite the best efforts and intervention of the elders. During the last week of November, 2008, the revision petitioners requested the defendants to complete documentation. However, the defendants, having promised to abide by the terms of the Will, failed to do so. Thereafter, the 1st plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance seeking a direction to the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in his favour and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to him with all the relevant bona fide link documents.

(c) In the aforesaid circumstances, in order to protect their right and interest in the suit schedule property, it is just and expedient to implead the revision petitioners as plaintiffs 2 & 3 in the suit. The revision petitioners are the necessary and proper parties in the suit, as they also have share in the movable and immovable properties of their deceased grandfather. Their impleadment as parties will not change the nature of the suit and will not cause any loss or injury to the defendant. It was also recited in the Will, dt.01.05.2006 “to divide movable and immovable properties into four equal shares to be given to my son and his three children in equal shares”. Hence, the instant application seeking their impleadment as proposed plaintiffs 2 & 3 in the suit.

4. The respondents/defendants 1 & 2 filed counter denying the petition averments and contending that the proposed parties are claiming relief on par with the claim of the plaintiff. The reliefs of the plaintiff and the petitioners are different