In a suit for partition of property, all the members of the family, who have interest and claim over the joint family properties are required to be impleaded. However, if the plaintiff is not claiming any relief with regard to joint family properties, but praying for conversion of joint possession into separate possession by partition of suit schedule properties into two equal shares and allotment of one such share, the right and interest of which are claimed on the basis of a registered Will, then the suit is not a partition suit 'per se', wherein ordinarily all the members of the family, who have interest and claim over the joint family properties are required to be impleaded.

ORDER :

The present Revision Petition is filed against an Order dated 07.01.2020 In I.A.No.890 of 2019 in O.S.No.875 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. Heard Mr. M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner/third party and Mr. S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, assisted by Ms. K.S.N. Majusha, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 5 are shown as not necessary parties to the C.R.P., as per the endorsement made in the Cause Title.

3. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.875 of 2014 referred to above against the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the present Civil Revision Petition. It is her case that one Kolli Rama Naidu, father of the respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner herein during his life time purchased an extent of 200 Sq. Yards in Plot No.14-A and another extent of 100 Sq. Yards in Plot No.14 through Registered Sale Deeds dated 15.10.1975 and 17.12.1977 respectively. He had constructed two portions of R.C.C. Building over the said two sites and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said house till his death. It is her further case that during his life time, he executed a Registered Will on 09.05.2001 in respect of the said property and another property situated at Gorapalli, Santhapalem Village, Pendurthi Mandalam of Visakhapatnam District bequeathing the same to her and the 2nd respondent equally. In the plaint, it was further averred that as per the Will, Northern portion fell to the share of the plaintiff/1st respondent, Southern portion fell to the share of the 1st defendant/2nd respondent and his 1/5th share in the joint family property out of Ac.0.99 cents situated in Gorapalli devolved to the plaintiff/1st respondent and 1st defendant/2nd respondent equally. After the death of their father on 15.09.2002, the schedule property was devolved on the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and 1st defendant/2nd respondent and she leased out Northern side portion to the 2nd defendant/3rd respondent herein. It was also averred that the 3rd respondent paid rents upto April, 2011 and committed default, which lead to issuance of legal notice on 01.02.2012 calling upon the 3rd respondent to vacate and handover the possession to the plaintiff/1st respondent. A reply was issued thereto on 11.02.2012 to the effect that the 3rd respondent is paying rents regularly to the 2nd respondent, who inducted her into possession of the property without any default and there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff/1st respondent and defendant No.2/respondent No.3. Under the said circumstances, the 1st respondent herein filed a suit for partition of plaint schedule property into two equal shares and allot one share to the plaintiff/1st respondent by converting joint possession into separate possession and mesne profits from May, 2011 till the date of handing over the possession to the 1st respondent.

4. In the suit, the defendants i.e., 2nd and 3rd respondents herein filed a written statement, wherein execution of the said Registered Will on 09.05.2001 was denied. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner herein along with his two sons filed the above mentioned I.A under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’) R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to permit them to be impleaded as defendants 3, 4 and 5 in the said suit, contending inter alia that the suit is not maintainable without impleading them as parties. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a counter opposing the said application. By an Order dated 07.01.2020, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application, aggrieved by which, the present Revision Petition has been preferred.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the Order of the learned Trial Court is unsustainable, as it failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, by appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper perspective. He submits that there is no dispute