ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 29.07.2019, of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, allowing I.A.No.34 of 2019 in O.S.No.39 of 2015 filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, by the third parties to come on record as defendants 2 & 3 as successors of the deceased defendant, Behera Vara Lakshmi, and allow them to contest the suit as they are proper and necessary parties to the suit, by directing the plaintiff to add them as defendants 2 & 3 in the short and long cause title of the plaint.

2. Heard Sri K.Subramanyam, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3/proposed parties.

3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

Kasi Sundara Rao and Kasi Yerrayya are own brothers. The deceased defendant, Vara Lakshmi, is the daughter of Yerrayya. The 1st petitioner/proposed party was fostered by Vara Lakshmi and her husband Behera Venkata Rao. Thereafter, they performed her marriage and after the marriage, she gave birth to a female child.

After she attained the age of five years, she was given in adoption to her fostered parents. As her husband went away, leaving her at her fostered parents and as his whereabouts are not known, the 1st petitioner remarried one Biswanath Singh of Moghal Sharai. The 1st petitioner, her husband and her daughter looked after the welfare and day to day needs of her fostered parents during their old age and during their life time. The plaintiffs, who are the children of Behera Venkata Rao through his first wife, neglected and deserted him after their marriage. Behera Vara Lakhsmi executed registered Will, dated 27.12.2016, bequeathing all her properties to the petitioners. As such, the petitioners got the suit schedule house property and continuing to reside therein. Therefore, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit.

4. The plaintiffs filed counter objecting the petition and contending as follows:

The family-members certificate and other proceedings obtained from mee-seva by the deceased defendant and her people were cancelled by the Tahasildar, Srikakulam, by observing that they were obtained on suppression of facts, by producing false material. The Will, dated 07.02.2011, executed by Behera China Venkata Rao who is the natural father of the plaintiffs allows only the deceased defendant (DW1) to live in the schedule house during her life time and after her, the property absolutely vested on the plaintiffs. Accordingly, she stayed therein till her death. She cannot set up any others to stay in the house. Thus, the schedule property is to be partitioned amongst the plaintiffs only. The Will relied by the petitioners is fabricated. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. On contest, by the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the petition holding that the genuineness of the Will is to be decided during the course of trial only and it is just and necessary to allow the petitioners to come on record as defendants 2 and 3, as successors of deceased sole defendant and to contest the suit without prejudice to the contentions of both parties.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed this revision petition reiterating the same points raised in the counter.

7. Both parties rely on Wills, the plaintiffs relied on the Will alleged to be executed by China Venkata Rao, whereas the proposed parties relied on the Will allegedly executed by the deceased sole defendant, both of which are yet to be put to proof. Merely because one party denied the document of other party even before taking evidence of the documents relied on, it is premature to reject the relief of the petitioners/proposed parties to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant.

8. Here, in this application, prima facie case shows in favour of the proposed parties as