ORDER :

This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated 18.02.2010 passed in I.A.No.639 of 2009 filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity "CPC"), in I.A.No.388 of 2007 in O.S.No.86 of 1986 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tenali. The Trial Court "Allowed" the said application filed to review the Order, dated 17.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.93 of 2009 in I.A.No.388 of 2007 in O.S.No.86 of 1986.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the Trial Court proceedings.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff, defendant Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the sons, defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the daughters of late Turaga Ramamurthy. Defendant No.1 is the second wife of Turaga Ramamurthy and mother of plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 to 9 and stepmother to defendant No.2. The plaintiff contends that he is entitled to 11/70th share in the joint family properties, but the defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 9 are not cooperating for partition. It was alleged that the defendant No.5 is managing the entire joint family properties without accounting for it and the defendant Nos.5 and 6 in collusion with others, purchased "C" schedule property on 03.06.1987 for Rs.5,000/- with joint family funds. Thus, the plaintiff is also entitled for 11/70th share in "C" schedule property.

4. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.86 of 1986 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tenali against the defendants for Partition and it was preliminarily decreed on 29.04.1993 holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 11/70th share and defendant Nos.10 and 11, who are co-sharers, are entitled to 1/5th share in the share of plaintiff; the defendant Nos.2, 3 to 6 are entitled to 11/70th share each and defendant Nos.1, 7 to 9 are entitled to 1/70th share each in the plaint "A" and "C" schedule properties.

5. Later the Defendant Nos.7 to 9 filed I.A.No.388 of 2007 under Order XX Rule 18 and Section 151 of CPC to pass a Final Decree as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005). The Trial Court in its Order, dated 13.10.2008 appointed an Advocate-Commissioner directing to divide plaint "A" and "C" schedule properties into 100 equal shares and to allot 11 such shares to each of them.

6. While so, the defendant Nos.7 to 9 filed another application in I.A.No.93 of 2009 for amendment of last para of the Judgment and preliminary decree for substitution of division of plaint "A" and "C" schedule properties into 100 equal shares in the place of 70 equal shares and for allotment of shares to the respective sharers impleading defendant Nos.3 to 6, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 10 and 11. The learned Trial Court allowed the said application on 17.08.2009.

7. Aggrieved by the said Order, the defendant Nos.3 to 6 and legal representatives of the defendant No.2 filed a petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC to review the Order passed in I.A.No.93 of 2009, dated 17.08.2009 on the ground that Section 6 (3) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) applies only to cases where Hindu dies after the commencement of Amendment Act of 2005 and it is prospective, but not retrospective in operation, as Turaga Ramamurthy died on 17.07.1961, the amended Act does not apply to the facts of the case and even Andhra Pradesh Amended Act 13 of 1986 also does not apply to the daughters i.e., defendant Nos.7 to 9, as their marriage was performed prior to commencement of amended Act.

8. The Trial Court, considering the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheela Devi and others vs. Lal Chand and another, 2007 (2) ALT 52 (SC) and Anar Devi vs. Parameswari Devi and others, 2006 (6) ALT 38 (SC), "Allowed" the application on 18.02.2010 holding that succession to the property of Turaga Ramamurthy opened after his death in the year 1961, which is much prior to the cut-off date 09.09.2005, given for commencement of 2005 Amendment Act and therefore, his estate vest