JUDGMENT : 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, in I.A.No.60 of 2007 in LAOP No.46 of 2006 whereby the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, to bring him on record as the legal representative of one Mala Kistanna was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner herein is the objector in the award No.24 of 2006 dated 09.06.2006. He claims that his father Chandrappa and Kistanna are brothers. In the last days of said Kistanna, according to the petitioner, he extended his services to Kistanna, who is none other than his junior paternal uncle. Having been satisfied with his services, the said Kistanna executed a registered a Will on 14.11.2006 bequeathing an extent of Ac.6.21 guntas in Sy.No.139/a to him. Further, according to the petitioner, the said Kistanna sold an extent of Ac.1.26 guntas of land in Sy.No.138/a situated in Katrevupalli village under registered sale deed dated 14.11.2006 to him. However, the Land Acquisition Officer had acquired Ac.1.26 guntas of land in Sy.No.138/a and an extent of Ac.2.23 guntas in Sy.No.139/a. While the matter is pending, the said Kistanna died on 06.03.2007. Now, by virtue of the Will executed by the said Kistanna, the petitioner herein stepped into the shoes of the said Kistanna and hence he is entitled to receive compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. This court on 24.08.2009, while ordering notice before admission, granted interim stay. 4. The respondents 2 and 3, being minors, represented by their mother and natural guardian i.e. first respondent, filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that they are the grand children of the said Kistanna and that they became title holders of the said lands by virtue of principle of succession as their father by name Obanna son of said Kistanna died. They denied the execution of the Will deed by said Kistanna in token of services alleged to have been rendered by the petitioner herein and also the sale deed on the day of Will. Their contention is that being the legal heirs of their father late Obanna, who is the son of said Kistanna, they issued notice to the Land Acquisition Officer not to pay total compensation to the said Kistanna. Their contention is that being the legal heirs of their father late Obanna, who is the son of said Kistanna, they issued notice to the Land Acquisition Officer not to pay total compensation to the said Kistanna. Accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the court below under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and after the matter being referred, the said Kistanna died leaving behind the respondents 2 to 4 as his legal representatives. It is further contended that after the death of said Kistanna the respondents made an application to the Tahsildar for mutation of their names as legal representatives of said Kistanna and after following due procedure, the Tahsildar ordered mutation of their names in the revenue records at which time there was no opposition from the petitioner. But, subsequently challenging the order of the Tahsildar, the petitioner herein filed appeal before the RDO Narayanpet and the same was dismissed by order dated 05.05.2008 on contest by the respondents with an observation that as the alleged sale deed and the alleged Will dated 14.11.2006 are after publication of Draft Declaration Orders by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.01.2006, therefore, it will not have legal force to get compensation, particularly when the deceased Kistanna is having legal heirs and the property is ancestral one and not his self acquired property and unless and until his share is divided he has no right to execute any such deeds. The said order of the RDO has become final, declaring the respondents as legal representatives of late Kistanna. Now the petitioner filed the present I.A.No.60 of 2007 in LAOP No.46 of 2006 on the file of the court below to bring him as one of the parties to the proceedings on the basis of the registered sale deed and Will dated 14.11.2006 executed by late Kistanna and that the petitioner filed the present petition only to grab the compensation. 5. Heard both sides. 5. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the RDO as well as the court below failed to consider that after the death of the said Kistanna only the Will deed came into operation and he further contended that as the petitioner looked after the welfare of the late Kistanna in his old age, and as the respondents 2 to 4 have left him to his fate, the said Kistanna executed the Will and sale deed in favour of the petitioner out of gratitude. He further contended that there is a distinction between legal heir and legal representative and as the respondents, though they be the legal heirs of late Kistanna, cannot be termed as legal representatives of late Kistanna as the interests of the late Kistanna are in conflict with those of the respondents and hence the petitioner who took care of late Kistanna in his old age, alone can be termed as legal representative to the estate of late Kistanna but not the respondents 2 to 4. In support of the said contention he relied on the judgment of this court in G.N. Kishore Reddy Vs. R.Venugopal Rao and others 2004 (3) ALD 683 and hence the petitioner has a right to come on record and contest the proceedings. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 contended that the petitioner could not establish the fact that the disputed lands are the self acquired properties of late Kistanna to dispose off them as per his will and pleasure and that the disputed property is the ancestral property of late Kistanna and so he cannot dispose off the same as per his wish when successors to him and the property are available. 7. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In G.N. Kishore Reddy (1 supra) this court has clearly dealt with the distinction between the legal heir and legal representative. It is borne out of the impugned order that the Respondents 2 to 4 have left the deceased Kistanna to his fate in his old age and it is the prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he alone looked after the deceased Kistanna in his old age and out of gratitude only the said Kistanna executed the alleged Will and Sale deed in favour of the Petitioner. After all, this is a petition to permit the Petitioner to come on record to contest the proceedings on the basis of a Will and sale deed alleged to have been executed by the deceased Kistanna through whom the Respondents 2 to 4 are also claiming some interest as legal heirs. It is not necessary that in every case a legal heir is entitled to be treated as legal representative also. The permission granted to represent the estate of a decreased party to a proceedings cannot be treated as a final adjudication on the rights, except where it is decided as a specific issue. Instead of driving the Petitioner to institute a separate proceeding, in my considered view, it is better to permit the Petitioner to come on record and contest the OP. However, the Respondents will also have an ample opportunity to canvass their case to disprove the said documents. All the claims relating to the property need to be dealt within the same proceedings, instead of the parties being required to institute parallel or tangent proceedings. 8. For the foregoing discussion, this revision is allowed. The Petitioner is permitted to come on record in LAOP No.46 of 2006. The Court below is hereby directed to give opportunity to the Respondents 2 to 4 to cross examine the Petitioner on the alleged Will and sale deed. No costs.