The court upheld the trial Court's dismissal of the application to add a legal representative due to lack of evidence supporting adoption and the validity of the Will.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 12.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.304 of 2022 in O.S. No.31 of 2020 on the file of Additional Civil Judge‟s Court (senior Division), Eluru (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The present impugned I.A.No.304 of 2022 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC to add 2^nd petitioner as 2^nd plaintiff as LR of deceased 1^st plaintiff and permit him to carryout consequential amendment of plaint.

3. The 1^st petitioner herein is the plaintiff-deceased and the 2^nd petitioner herein has filed the impugned I.A. and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The facts of the case are that one Smt L. Chilakamma-deceased plaintiff is his adoptive mother and owner in occupation and actual possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. It is stated that the deceased 1^st plaintiff has filed suit in O.S No.31 of 2020 before the trial Court for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.5.2019 , which was registered as document No.4848/2019 obtained by the defendants fradulently from her and award costs of the suit. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff died on 10.07.2021 leaving behind him as legal heir to her and there are no legal heirs to the deceased and the Tahsildar also issued family members certificate. His deceased mother executed her last Will and testament on 23.12.2018 bequeathed the schedule property to him. Hence, the 2^nd petitioner prayed this Court to allow this petition.

6. The respondent No.1 filed counter before the trial Court and denied the averments in the petition. The respondents 2 and 3 adopted the counter filed by 1st respondent. The respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner/proposed party is not at all adopted son of Lankapalli chilakamma and she never executed any WILL in favour of the 2^nd petitioner herein much less the alleged WILL dated 23.12.2018. The respondent No.1 further submitted that late Lankapalli Chilakamma is the elder sister of 1st respondent and she died on 10.7.2021. It is further submitted that one Lankapali Sreeramulu is the husband of Lankapalli Chilakamma/plaintiff and they were blessed with one daughter by name Joyce Lilly Vinoda Rani and she is the only daughter to Lankapalli Chilakamma and Lankapalli Sreeramulu and the said Lankapalli Chilakamma's husband and her daughter predeceased to her and the said Lankapalli Chilakamma/plaintiff during her life time never adopted anybody. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner/proposed plaintiff is the son of the elder sister of Lankapalli Chilakamma and the respondent, son of late Natha Sarasamma and late Natha Gagaiah and the suit documents filed in the above suit clearly proves the same. It is further stated that the suit in OS No.31/2020 was also not filed by the late Lankapalli Chilakamma and this false suit got filed by the petitioner/proposed plaintiff by playing fraud. It is also stated that the alleged family members certificate might have been created by the petitioner by influencing the authorities. Therefore, this respondent prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.

7. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both the learned counsels had dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had not adduced any evidence or placed any material before the Court to substantiate that he was adopted by late Smt. L. Chilakamma and that late Smt. L. Chilakamma had bequeathed her property by way of a Will to him. Aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd petitioner herein approached this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

8. Heard Sri C. Venkaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared virtually through Video conferencing.

9. On hearing, learned counsel for the petiti