Judgment :- The above Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the suit against the fair and decretal order dated 3. 2005 made in I.A.No. 659 of 2000 in O.S.No. 9049 of 1996 on the file of the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai allowing the I.A., filed by the plaintiffs to implead themselves as well as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit as legal heirs and representatives of the deceased first defendant. .2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit filed by the respondent Meenakshi herein as the first plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 as plaintiffs 2 to 4 respectively who are transposed as defendants 4 to after they agreed to withdraw the suit. The suit was filed by the daughters of the deceased first defendant against him and the revision petitioners seeking for partition and separate possession of their alleged 1/6th share in the suit property. Pending the suit, the first defendant died. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first defendant, their father has no absolute title to the suit property. The first defendant resisted the suit contending that he is the absolute owner and executed a registered Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of his two sons, namely the petitioners herein. 3. After the demise of the first defendant, the plaintiffs filed the I.A., to implead themselves as well as the second and third defendants as the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant. The second and third defendants contested the said I.A., stating that the deceased first defendant died leaving behind a registered Will dated 17. 1999 bequeathing the suit property to them and they re alone the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. In fact there has been a conflict of interest between the plaintiff and the first defendant. They disputed the right and title of the first defendant even during his lie time and hence they cannot be the legal representatives in the suit. 4. The learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after considering the pleadings and submissions made by the respective counsel, allowed the application impleading the plaintiffs and the revision petitioners here as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. As against the said order, the present revision is filed. 5. 4. The learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after considering the pleadings and submissions made by the respective counsel, allowed the application impleading the plaintiffs and the revision petitioners here as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. As against the said order, the present revision is filed. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners who are second and third defendants in the suit contended that as per Order XXII Rule 4 of the code of Civil Procedure, while considering whether a person can claim legal heirship, the question that can be considered is whether the deceased has left behind a Will or not and if there s a Will left behind by the deceased, only the beneficiaries under the Will can be recorded as the legal heir of the deceased under Section 216 of the Indian Succession Act. Therefore according to the learned senior counsel the beneficiaries under the Will can only be brought as the legal representatives of the first defendant. In this case the sisters of the revision petitioners cannot claim any right to represent the estate of the deceased first defendant since the revision petitioners alone are the beneficiaries under the Will and they also probated the Will and obtained Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased first defendant. .6. But it is curious to note that the suit has been filed in the year 1996 and the Will is dated 17. 1999 and the same has been probated by this court by order dated 13. 2001. Admittedly, the suit has been filed by the daughters as against their brothers, the revision petitioners/beneficiaries under the Will for partition claiming that their father, the deceased first defendant himself had not acquired the absolute right over the suit property. Therefore, the suit having been filed in the year 1996 i.e., prior to the date of Will and Section 216 of the Indian Succession Act cannot be invoked to the facts of the present case since if at all the plaintiffs succeed in their claim that the suit property belong to their mother, and after her death they as legal heirs entitled for their shares, all the subsequent Probates and Letters of Administration would become null and void. But it is also to be pointed out that the probate obtained by the father, deceased first defendant based on the Will executed in his favour by his wife, has become final since the revocation attempt made by the plaintiffs herein was failed and even in the probate proceedings in respect of the second and third defendants, for the service of notice upon the plaintiffs, they did not choose to appear in court for making objections or filed any counter. However, since the suit is for partition based on the Settlement Deed executed by Rukmani Ammal in favour of their mother Deivanai Ammal conveying life interest to her and absolute vested remainder in their favour and defendants 2 and 3 and thus disputing the very title of the first defendant, I do not find any irregularity in the order of the trial court in recording the plaintiffs and the revision petitioners herein as the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased first defendant. It is also made clear that the above observation will not be a predicament to the revision petitioners in proving their case based on the Will executed by the deceased first defendant and subsequent grant of Probates and Letters of Administration by this Court. 7. In the result, the CRP is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. No costs.