( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order passed by the Principal senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam on 4-1-2000 in I. A. No. 872 of 1997 in O. S. No. 1016 of 1996. ( 2 ) THE first respondent-plaintiff is the daughter of the first petitioner and petitioners 2 and 3 are the brothers of the first respondent-plaintiff. The first respondent- plaintiff filed the said O. S. No. 1016 of 1996 against the second respondent for its eviction from the suit schedule property and recovery of rents. During the pendency of the said o. S. No. 1016 of 1996, the petitioners filed i. A. No. 872 of 1997 under Order 1 Rule 10 c. P. C. to add the petitioners as defendants 2 to 4 in the said O. S. No. 1016 of 1996 and as respondents in I. A. No. 701 of 1997 and direct the first respondent-plaintiff to carry out the amendments to the plaint. The court below dismissed the suit i. A. No. 872 of 1997 holding that the first respondent-plaintiff is title holder and registered owner of the suit schedule property and the dispute of the petitioners with regard to the benami transaction i. e. , purchase of suit schedule property by the first petitioner in the name of one (first respondent-plaintiff) of the members of the joint family, cannot be thrashed out in a suit filed by the first respondent-plaintiff under the garb of joint family properties and thereby the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper part to the suit. Aggrieved by that order, the proposed party defendants 2 to 4 filed this civil revision petition. ( 3 ) HEARD both sides and perused the record. Aggrieved by that order, the proposed party defendants 2 to 4 filed this civil revision petition. ( 3 ) HEARD both sides and perused the record. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of the first respondent- plaintiff but in fact it is only a benami transaction and as the first respondent- plaintiff being minor at the time of purchase of the suit schedule property it was purchased by the first petitioner in the name of the first respondent-plaintiff; that the joint family properties were subsequently partitioned and partition deed was executed on 19-2: 1996 to which the first respondent is also a party; that the first respondent-plaintiff was subsequently married and that, therefore, the first respondent-plaintiff cannot claim right or title to or ownership of the suit schedule property. ( 5 ) THE only issue that has to be decided in the suit is whether there is relationship of landlady and tenant between the first respondent-plaintiff and the second respondent-defendant and whether there are any arrears of rent payable by the second respondent-defendant. Admittedly the suit was filed against the second respondent- defendant for the ejectment and for recovery of rents and the rents are being paid by way of demand drafts and cheques in the name of the first respondent-plaintiff and, therefore, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the relationship of landlady and tenant between the first respondent-plaintiff and the second respondent-defendant. The relationship of landlady and tenant between the first respondent-plaintiff and the second respondent-defendant and the payment of rents payable by the second respondent- defendant to the first respondent-plaintiff by way of demand drafts or cheques are not in dispute. The only dispute raised by the petitioners is that there was unregistered family partititon and in fact they are the real owners and, therefore, the suit filed by the first respondent-plaintiff against the second respondent-defendant is not maintainable. Contending so, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of a Division bench of this High Court in Khaja Abdul v. Mahabub Saheb. This decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Contending so, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of a Division bench of this High Court in Khaja Abdul v. Mahabub Saheb. This decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In that decision, the plaintiffs in the suit for eviction and possession of the disputed property claimed to be the owners of the land on the ground that it was the service inam property of the mosque and the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed that they were in possession and enjoyment of the property. This High court held therein that the court has to determine the question of title of the plaintiffs and in order to decide the question relating to the ownership of the land, the first respondent must be considered to be a necessary and proper party without whose presence the question cannot be finally and effectually adjudicated upon. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the title of the first respondent-plaintiff and the claim set up by the petitioners is yet to be decided in a proper forum. The other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been rightly distinguished by the court below. ( 6 ) RELYING upon another decision of this High Court in Gudula Sitaratnain v. Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu and others, the learned counsel for the first respondent- plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that basing upon an unregistered partition deed the petitioners who seek to be impleaded as party defendant cannot be said to be proper and necessary party for determination of the questions involved in the eviction suit. In gudiila Sitaratnam v. Andhavampu Govinda rajulu (supra), for eviction of the tenant in a suit the petitioner-third party sought his impleadment as a defendant claiming title to the suit schedule property based on an agreement of sale. The title of the plaintiff who possessed registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property was not disputed. This High Court held therein that the petitioner-third party who sought to be impleaded as a defendant claiming title to the suit schedule property on the basis of an agreement of sale can vindicate his rights in a separate suit. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the title of the petitioners is based on an unregistered partition deed. This High Court held therein that the petitioner-third party who sought to be impleaded as a defendant claiming title to the suit schedule property on the basis of an agreement of sale can vindicate his rights in a separate suit. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the title of the petitioners is based on an unregistered partition deed. In view of the decision in gudiila Sitaratnam v. Andhavarapu Govinda rajulu and others cited by the learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff, the petitioners cannot be impleaded as necessary and proper parties in the suit filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for ejectment of the second respondent-defendant and recovery of rents as long as their title is not established in separate suit. It is always open to the petitioners to file a separate suit to establish their right, title and possession either for partition of the so-called joint family properties or for enforcement of the unregistered partition, which is a different cause of action. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under this Civil revision Petition. ( 8 ) THE civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.