ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-proposed plaintiffs, aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2021 in I.A. No.317 of 2019 in O.S No.10 of 2019 passed by the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed O.S. No.10 of 2019 to declare her as legal heir of deceased Motilal Jawar, along with her other deceased sisters Smt. Banwari Bai, Krishna Bai and Kamala Bai and for delivery of contents placed in safe locker No.542-B of the respondent No.2 bank i.e.

Central Bank of India, Koti Branch, Hyderabad.

3. The respondent No.2 bank filed written statement contesting the matter. They contended that no document was placed by the plaintiff to show that Smt. Bhanwari Bai, Krishna Bai and Kamala Bai died and that she had not disclosed the family members of the alleged deceased sisters and not made them as parties to the suit, the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by all the children of her sisters granting permission to the respondent No.1-plaintiff to appear before the concerned authorities to sign all the documents that were necessary to get the locker released by way of submission of necessary representations and also enclosed the succession certificate issued by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OP No.496 of 1977, dated 01.10.1981. The respondent No.2 bank raised objection with regard to the said documents also stating that the MOU was an unregistered document and that the succession certificate filed before the court was a photocopy and that they were not admissible in evidence.

4. Subsequently, the revision petitioner Nos.1 to 17 herein filed an application vide I.A. No.317 of 2019 before the XX Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to implead themselves as plaintiff Nos.2 to 18 in O.S. No.10 of 2019 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with 151 of CPC. The respondent No.2 Bank filed counter in the said application opposing that the affidavit filed by the petitioner No.9 in the said application cannot be considered as valid as no authorization letter or GPA was given to him to represent all the other applicants and that he had no locus standi to represent them and no documents were filed by the proposed plaintiffs to show that they were the legal heirs of the deceased Motilal Jawar.

5. The court below on considering the contentions raised by both the counsel before it, dismissed the petition observing that in a suit for declaration, all the legal heirs were necessary parties to the suit, but however, no documentary evidence was filed to show that they were the legal heirs of late Motilal Jawar. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application, the proposed plaintiffs preferred this civil revision petition.

6. During the pendency of the revision petition, the proposed plaintiffs filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 to receive the documents to prove that they were the legal heirs of the three daughters of deceased Motilal Jawar besides respondent No.1 and that they were also proper and necessary parties to the suit.

7. Heard Sri P.V.S.A. Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mettu Vikranth Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Mettu Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Bank.

8. Perused the record.

9. As seen from the record, the respondent No.1 – plaintiff filed the suit for succession certificate under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 to declare her as legal heir of deceased Motilal Jawar, along with her sisters Smt. Bhanwari Bai, Krishna Bai and Kamala Bai, daughters of deceased Motilal Jawar and to direct the respondent No.2 Bank to allow her for custody of the safe deposit locker account No.542-B and to release the contents lying therein. She had not suppressed the fact that she was having three other sisters, but stated that all her three sisters died and the legal heirs of all h