ORDER:

With consent finally heard Sri G. VasanthaRayudu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 18.03.2024 whereby, I.A.No.6336 of 2023 in O.S.No.210 of 2020 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, is decided.

FACTS:-

3. The admitted facts between the parties are that the main suit is filed by the deceased/plaintiff No.1 and her husband seeking eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the defendants. Plaintiff No.1 died on 16.10.2023 leaving behind her husband i.e., plaintiff No.2 and her children by names C.

Chandrashekar, C. Sridhar, Navageetha, Sangeetha and Saritha.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the deceased/plaintiff No.1 had allegedly executed a Will Deed dated 06.01.2022 bequeathing her half share in the suit schedule property in favour of her sons C. Chandrashekar and C. Sridhar. Thus, plaintiff No.2 intended to implead them as proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 in the main suit and to carry out consequential corrections to the plaint.

5. The respondents filed their counter to the said interlocutory application before the Court below and raised question regarding the existence and genesis of the Will Deed dated 06.02.2022. It was urged that adding legal representatives to the suit and bequeathing some property in between some legal representatives are two different and distinct aspects. It was also urged before the Court below that the daughters may be added as parties to the suit since they are blood relatives along with sons of deceased/plaintiff No.1. The respondents pleaded that the daughters are necessary and proper parties to the suit and without their participation, the suit cannot be decided.

6. The Court below heard the parties and framed the following question:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for, i.e., impleading the proposed parties as plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 in the main suit and for consequential amendments to the plaint?”

7. The Court below after considering certain judgments relied upon by the parties, came to hold that the interlocutory application is liable to be allowed and the proposed parties were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 and also directed for consequential amendments to the plaint.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the Court below has erred in directing the legal representatives to be impleaded in view of Will Deed of the deceased/plaintiff No.1. Since all are having equal and joint rights on the suit schedule property, the Court below erred in permitting the legal representatives to be impleaded. The alleged legal representatives were not necessary parties. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal vs. Krishna Bansal, [2010 (2) SCC 162]

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the instant suit was suit for eviction/recovery of rent and damages. The suit has no relation with declaration of title or partition etc,. Thus, the Court below has not committed any error of law in passing the impugned order. He supported the impugned order on the strength of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of AkkarayoyinaApparao vs. KoradAmmoru, [1998 (2) ALD 296]. Lastly, by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of KasthuriRadhakrishnan vs. M. Chinniyan, [(2016) 3 SCC 296], the impugned order was supported.

10. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

11. The core issue is pertaining to joinder of legal representatives in eviction petition filed against the tenant. Learned counsel for the parties are at loggerheads on the aspect of joinder of all the parties. Pertinently, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of Apex Court in the case of Sure