JUDGMENT : The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, Eluru, West Godavari District. The respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allotment of 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant and for determination of mesne profits and for costs. 4. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: (a) The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 3rd defendant are brothers and they are the sons of one Satyanarayana. Defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the plaintiffs Satyanarayana are brothers and they are the sons of Singuluri Venkata Ramayya and his wife Ramanamma. Late Singuluri Venkata Ramayya and his three sons partitioned their joint family properties under a registered partition deed dated 28-11-1957. The properties mentioned in the schedule fell to the share of late Singuluri Venkata Ramayya under the registered partition deed dated 28-11-1957 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death on 17-01-1986. Later, the said Venkata Ramayya died intestate, leaving behind his wife and 3 sons and the L.Rs of his three sons are in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The father of the plaintiff Satyanarayana died on 18-02-1986 intestate, leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 3rd defendant as his L.Rs and they succeeded to the estate of their father. Subsequently, Smt. Ramanamma, wife of late Venkata Ramayya, died intestate in the year 1991 and on that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 3rd defendant are having 1/3rd share and defendants 1 and 2 are having 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties. The 1st defendant is managing the plaint schedule property on behalf of all the sharers and distributing the income to all the sharers. The 1st defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant for the last 2 years and postponed the payment on some pretext or other. (b) Subsequently, the 1st defendant with a wrongful and dishonest intention is trying to secure pass book and title deed to the schedule property in his name by setting up exclusive title on him. (b) Subsequently, the 1st defendant with a wrongful and dishonest intention is trying to secure pass book and title deed to the schedule property in his name by setting up exclusive title on him. The plaintiffs further came to know that the 1st defendant is basing his claim on some forged and fabricated documents. The 1st plaintiff immediately made a complaint before the Revenue authorities requesting them not to grant any pass book and title deed to the schedule property without their knowledge and consent. There are teak wood trees in the schedule property. The 1st defendant high handedly and illegally cut away the same and the Forest officials seized the said trees. In view of the hostile attitude of the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant expressed their unwillingness to continue the joint possession and demanded for partition of the schedule property into 3 equal shares and for separate possession of one such share to them. The 1st defendant is not cooperating for partition of the same. Hence, the suit. 5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which is adopted by the 2nd defendant. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: They agreed the relationship between the parties and the division of properties under a registered partition deed dated 28-11-1957. Even after the said partition deed, late Venkata Ramayya, his son late Satyanarayana and defendants 1 and 2 lived together till 1961. By then the joint family was heavily indebted to several creditors to a tune of about Rs.90,000/-. Then the father of the plaintiffs intended to separate himself with his father and brothers in the year 1961 and got himself separated. The said Satyanarayana, father of the plaintiffs, disowned the joint liabilities and he did not agree to share the outstanding joint liabilities. The 1st defendant used to assist his father in his cultivation as the father of the plaintiffs cut off his ties with Venkata Ramayya. The properties fell to the share of late Venkata Ramayya are situated within the limits of agency tract and the properties fell to the share of the 1st defendant are situated at Taduvai village. Late Venkata Ramayya lost his hope of discharging the family debts out of the income from the lands, wanted to sell away the properties of 1st defendant to discharge the same. Late Venkata Ramayya lost his hope of discharging the family debts out of the income from the lands, wanted to sell away the properties of 1st defendant to discharge the same. Though the plaintiffs’ father is bound to contribute his share of liability, he did not contribute even a pie to discharge the joint family debts. In fact, it was late Venkata Ramayya who arranged sale of lands of the 1st defendant, the joint family’s liabilities were discharged with the consideration received by selling the lands of 1st defendant. Late Venkata Ramayya, during his life time, executed a Will dated 29-12-1985 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the plaint schedule to this defendant and Item No.5 of the plaint schedule to his 5th daughter. The said Will is the last testament of late Venkata Ramayya. The 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the plaint schedule properties as an absolute owner by virtue of the Will dated 29-12-1985. He never paid any income to the plaintiffs or the 3rd defendant and the plaintiffs have no right to seek for partition of the schedule properties and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition as prayed for ? (2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties ? and (3) To what relief ? 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got examined two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-16. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1 and got examined six more witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 7 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-6. 8. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. 9. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court. 10. 8. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. 9. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court. 10. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant died and his legal representatives are brought on record as appellants 4 to 6 as per Court order dated 10-12-2020 made in I.A.No.3 of 2019; the 2nd respondent also died and his legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 4 to 7 as per Court order dated 10-12-2020 made in I.A.No.5 of 2019. 11. Heard Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Radha Krishna, on behalf of Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 12. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that there are so many suspicious circumstances to disbelieve the Will dated 29-12-1985 and the 1st defendant failed to prove Ex.B-1 Will, but unfortunately the trial Court came to wrong conclusion that the Will is proved by the 1st defendant. He would further contend that the suit schedule properties are not yet partitioned and the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court came to the right conclusion that the Will dated 29-12-1985 is proved and the suit is not at all maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and the appeal may be dismissed. 14. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether Ex.B-1 Will dated 29-12-1985 is proved by the 1st defendant ? (2) Whether the suit for partition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? (3) Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the partition of plaint schedule properties? (4) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and (5) To what extent ? 15. Point No.1 :- Whether Ex.B-1 Will dated 29-12-1985 is proved by the 1st defendant ? The case of the plaintiffs is that themselves and the 3rd defendant are brothers and they are the sons of one Satyanarayana. (4) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and (5) To what extent ? 15. Point No.1 :- Whether Ex.B-1 Will dated 29-12-1985 is proved by the 1st defendant ? The case of the plaintiffs is that themselves and the 3rd defendant are brothers and they are the sons of one Satyanarayana. The plaintiffs further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 and father of the plaintiffs, by name Satyanarayana, are brothers. Therefore, the relationship of the parties is not in dispute. Satyanarayana, defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of late Singuluri Venkata Ramayya and his wife Ramanamma. The material on record goes to show that Venkata Ramayya, defendants 1 and 2, father of the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant partitioned their property on 28-11-1957. The plaintiffs themselves marked the registration extract of the partition deed as Ex.A-1. The plaintiffs are claiming that the suit schedule property fell to the share of Venkata Ramayya under a registered partition deed dated 28-11-1957 and the same is not in dispute by the defendants. 16. The case of the 1st defendant is that the properties shown in the schedule belongs to his father, he got the same under a registered partition deed dated 28-11-1957. It is not at all disputed the same by the other side. The 1st defendant further pleaded that the plaint schedule properties which fell to the share of late Venkata Ramayya are situated within the limits of agency area where alienation of immoveable properties is totally prohibited and the properties fell to his share in the registered partition deed are situated at Taduvai village which is a plain area. His father heavily indebted to the creditors and at the request of his father, he was constrained to sell away the land that fell to his share to discharge the joint family liabilities and the plaintiffs’ father never looked after the comforts of his parents and the plaintiffs’ father never looked after the welfare of his parents. He further pleaded that late Venkata Ramayya, during his life time, executed a Will dated 29-12-1985 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the plaint schedule property to him and Item No.5 of the plaint schedule property to his 5th daughter, the same is the last testament of late Venkata Ramayya and Venkata Ramayya died on 17-01-1986. The death of Venkata Ramayya on 17-01-1986 is not at all disputed by the other side. The reason explained by the 1st defendant for bequeathing Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant is that his father heavily indebted to several creditors to a tune of Rs.90,000/- and the plaintiffs’ father intended to separate himself i.e. father and brothers and disowned the joint liabilities and he did not agree to share the outstanding joint liabilities. The same is supported by own witness of the plaintiffs i.e. P.W.2. P.W.2 admits that the plaintiffs’ father got separated from the defendants and their father and that by the date of marriage of plaintiffs’ father, the 1st defendant is a minor. The case of the 1st defendant is that the plaint schedule property is situated within the limits of agency area at where the alienation of immoveable properties is totally prohibited and the properties fell to his share under a registered partition deed are situated at Taduvai village which is at plain area, due to the aforesaid reasons, at the request of his father, he was constrained to sell his share of the property for discharging the joint family debts. The above defence was supported by other brothers and sisters of 1st defendant. However, the 1st plaintiff i.e. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination itself that his father and 1st defendant got lands at Taduvai village, the other sharers got land in agency area, the same cannot be sold due to ban. P.W.2 i.e. another witness of the plaintiffs admitted in cross-examination that the lands owned by Venkata Ramayya are in the agency area and they are prohibited from alienation. P.W.2 further admits that Venkata Ramayya used to borrow money from others during his life time. 17. It is the specific case of the 1st respondent/1st defendant that his father executed a Will dated 29-12-1985 in a sound and disposing state of mind by bequeathing Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the plaint schedule property to him and Item No.5 of the plaint schedule property to his 5th daughter and the said Will is the last testament of late Venkata Ramayya and late Venkata Ramayya died on 17-01-1986 and later, the wife of Venkata Ramayya i.e. Ramanamma died in the year 1991. The present suit is filed in the year 2001. The present suit is filed in the year 2001. The contention of the plaintiffs is that themselves and the 3rd defendant are having one share in the plaint schedule property and Venkata Ramayya died intestate. The plaint filed by the plaintiffs alone shows that the plaintiffs’ brother Pardhasaradhi did not cooperate with the plaintiffs for institution of a partition suit, 3rd defendant also did not enter into the witness-box to say that he is entitled share in the plaint schedule property and he did not plead that the Will is a fabricated one. The contention of the plaintiffs is that Venkata Ramayya died intestate. Therefore, the burden is heavily lies on the 1st defendant to prove the alleged Will. 18. To prove the alleged Will, the 1st defendant relied on the evidence of D.Ws.2 to 7. No doubt, D.Ws.5 to 7 are not attestors of Ex.B-1 Will. But, the evidence of D.Ws.5 to 7 asserts the execution of Ex.B-1 Will by late Venkata Ramayya. The recitals of Ex.B-1 goes to show that the 1st attestor in the Will is none other than the wife of Venkata Ramayya. The 2nd attestor is D.W.2. It is not in dispute by both sides that the scribe of Ex.B-1 is no more. 19. D.W.2 is the 2nd attestor in Ex.B-1 Will. His evidence testifies that during the life time of Venkata Ramayya, he executed a Will dated 29-12-1985 bequeathing his properties and by the date of execution of the Will, he was in a sound and disposing state of mind. As per his evidence, the Will was scribed in his presence and in the presence of the wife of testator Venkata Ramayya and one Kolluri Venkata Sita Ramanadham/scribe, on the dictation of the said Venkata Ramayya, the scribe prepared the Will. His evidence further testifies that himself and document writer signed on the Will and the wife of testator affixed her thumb impression in the presence of Venkata Ramayya and himself, his wife and the document writer saw Venkata Ramayya signing the Will and the entire execution of Ex.B-1 Will was taken place in his presence at the house of Venkata Ramayya. It is the not the case of plaintiffs that they are having enmity with D.W.2 and due to that, he deposes falsehood against them. It is the not the case of plaintiffs that they are having enmity with D.W.2 and due to that, he deposes falsehood against them. Except giving the suggestion to D.W.2 in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for other side that Ex.B-1 was created document, nothing was elicited from D.W.2 to discredit the testimony of D.W.2. 20. It is the specific case of 1st defendant that the scribe of Ex.B-1 is no more and his son was examined as D.W.3. As per the evidence of D.W.3, his father Venkata Sita Ramanadham was a licensed document writer and he is no more and he died on 19-02-1990. He further admits that he is also a document writer and he knows the writings and signatures of his father and his father scribed Ex.B-1 Will executed by Singuluri Venkata Ramayya and the said Will is dated 29-12-1985. The said Will is in the handwriting of his father and he signed the Will as a scribe and he knows the facts personally. In cross-examination when it was elicited from D.W.3, he admits that his father was a licensed document writer and during his life time, he used to maintain registers with regard to the documents drafted by him but those books are not available as the same were surrendered to the Government. It was not suggested to D.W.3 by the learned counsel for plaintiffs that his father has not scribed Ex.B-1 Will. His evidence is trustworthy. It is not the case of plaintiffs that D.W.3 is a close associate of the 1st defendant. 21. D.W.4 i.e. 2nd defendant also supports the execution of Ex.B-1 Will. He totally supported the case of the 1st defendant. As per the evidence of D.W.4, his father executed Ex.B-1 Will dated 29-12-1985. As per his evidence, his father heavily indebted to several creditors and the property of his father is situated at agency area and that is the reason he requested the 1st defendant to alienate his properties and the 1st defendant alienated his share of properties and discharged the debts and that his father executed Ex.B-1 Will by bequeathing Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant. In cross-examination when elicited by the plaintiffs’ counsel, he asserted his presence at the time of alleged Ex.B-1 Will. In cross-examination when elicited by the plaintiffs’ counsel, he asserted his presence at the time of alleged Ex.B-1 Will. He clearly stated that he did not make his signature on the Will as an attestor. He testifies that his father Venkata Ramayya is hale and healthy at the time of execution of Ex.B-1 Will. 22. One of the daughters of Venkata Ramayya i.e. D.W.5 also supports the execution of Ex.B-1. D.W.5 testifies about the execution of Ex.B-1 Will by her father. It is not the case of plaintiffs that they are having enmity with D.Ws.2 to 5. D.W.6 is another daughter of Venkata Ramayya, by name Anasuya. She also supported the total case of the 1st defendant. 23. D.W.7 admitted in his evidence about the execution of Ex.B-1 Will on 29-12-1985 by late Venkata Ramayya and he further deposed that in his presence, the said Will was executed and the wife of Venkata Ramayya also affixed her thumb mark as 1st attestor and D.W.2 acted as 2nd attestor and the scribe Venkata Sita Ramanadham of Taduvai village prepared the said Will. 24. The evidence of D.Ws.2 to 7 is sufficient to prove Ex.B-1 Will. Though D.Ws.2 to 7 were cross-examined by the learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs, nothing was elicited from their evidence to discredit the testimony of D.Ws.2 to 7 with regard to the proof of Ex.B-1 Will. The wife of Venkata Ramayya is no more, but the wife of testator by name Ramanamma gave her statement before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jeelugumilli, under Ex.B-3. In Ex.B-3 statement, the wife of Venkata Ramayya stated before the Mandal Revenue Officer about the execution of Ex.B-1 Will by her husband. Ex.B-1 Will contains four pages. In all the four pages, the testator made his signatures. Therefore, the plaintiffs have to explain what prevented them for sending Ex.B-1 Will to the scientific expert to prove the signatures of late Venkata Ramayya on the Will. The 1st defendant in order to prove the alleged Ex.B-1 Will, discharged his burden by examining more number of witnesses i.e. D.Ws.2 to 7. No doubt, the presence of D.Ws.3 to 7 is not there on Ex.B-1 Will. As per the own statement of P.W.1, there is no enmity between them and his father’s brothers. The 1st defendant in order to prove the alleged Ex.B-1 Will, discharged his burden by examining more number of witnesses i.e. D.Ws.2 to 7. No doubt, the presence of D.Ws.3 to 7 is not there on Ex.B-1 Will. As per the own statement of P.W.1, there is no enmity between them and his father’s brothers. D.W.4 is one of the brothers of 1st defendant and two daughters of Venkata Ramayya i.e. D.Ws.5 and 6 supported the case of 1st defendant. They have asserted that their father Venkata Ramayya heavily indebted to several creditors and the property got by Venkata Ramayya under registered partition deed is situated at agency area and there is a ban in those days and those lands cannot be alienated. Therefore, Venkata Ramayya requested the 1st defendant to alienate his share of properties and at request, the 1st defendant alienated his share of properties. In fact, Exs.A-12 and A-13 also show that the 1st defendant alienated his share of properties. The 1st defendant discharged his burden to prove the alleged Ex.B-1 Will and Ex.B-1 Will is proved as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On the other hand, to disprove Ex.B-1 Will, no evidence is produced by the appellants. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I hold that Ex.B-1 Will is proved by the 1st defendant. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the appellants/plaintiffs. 25. Point No.2 :- Whether the suit for partition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? There was a specific plea by the 1st defendant in the written statement itself that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the same is liable to be dismissed. The 1st defendant further pleaded in the written statement itself that late Venkata Ramayya got 3 sons and 5 daughters and the plaintiffs’ father is the eldest son and is no more and late Satyanarayana died leaving behind his wife, 4 sons and one daughter. For the reasons best known to the plaintiffs, the daughter and wife of late Venkata Ramayya are not added as parties to the suit. The trial Court also framed a specific issue that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit is instituted in the year 2001. The trial Court delivered the judgment on 30-01-2006. For the reasons best known to the plaintiffs, the daughter and wife of late Venkata Ramayya are not added as parties to the suit. The trial Court also framed a specific issue that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit is instituted in the year 2001. The trial Court delivered the judgment on 30-01-2006. The plaintiffs did not evince any interest to add the daughters of Venkata Ramayya and so also their sister as parties to the suit. There was a clear admission by the 1st plaintiff i.e. P.W.1 that his grandfather had 3 sons and 5 daughters. He further admits that he is having one sister. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 before this Court to implead the daughters of Venkata Ramayya as parties to the appeal i.e. respondents in the appeal and the said application was dismissed on 12-4-2022 on merits. The said order is not challenged by the appellants/plaintiffs, for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, the same is ended with finality. 26. In the case of Naba Kumar Hazra v. Radhashyam Mahish, 1931 SCC OnLine PC 52, it was held by the Privy Council as follows: “O. 1, R. 9 has no application to an appeal before the Privy Council in a case where the defect has been brought to the notice of the party concerned from the very outset of the proceedings and he has had ample opportunity of remedying it in India. A party cannot be allowed to be added at the time of the hearing of an appeal before the Privy Council when such a course, would necessitate a commencement of the proceedings de novo.” 27. In the case of Kanakarathanammal v. V. S. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271 , a five-Judge Bench of the apex Court held at para-14 as follows: “14. We do not think there is any justification for allowing the appellant to amend her plaint by adding her brothers at this late stage. We have already noticed that the plea of non-joinder had been expressly taken by respondents 1 and 2 in the trial Court and a clear and specific issue had been framed in respect of this contention. While the suit was being tried, the appellant might have applied to the trial Court to add her brothers, but no such application was made. While the suit was being tried, the appellant might have applied to the trial Court to add her brothers, but no such application was made. Even after the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on this ground it does not appear that the appellant moved the High Court and prayed that she should be allowed to join her brothers even at the appellate stage, and so, the High Court had no occasion to consider the said point. The fact that the High Court came to the contrary conclusion on the question of title does not matter, because if the appellant wanted to cure the infirmity in her plaint, she should have presented an application in that behalf at the hearing of the appeal itself. In fact, no such application was made even to this Court until the appeal was allowed to stand over after it was heard. Under the circumstances, we do not think it would be possible for us to entertain the said application. In the result, the application for amendment is rejected.” 28. In the case of Jahangirji (died) by LRs v. K. Kumar, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 744, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, held at para-30 as follows: “30. In K. Bhaskar Rao v. K.A. Rama Rao, 2010 (5) ADD 339, a learned Judge of this Court was dealing with a suit for partition wherein the defendant in the written statement raised the plea of non-joinder of the two sisters of the parties for which the plaintiff stated in his rejoinder that as they were already married and were given sufficient share in the form of cash and articles, they were not necessary parties. The plaintiff came up with an application to implead the sisters as parties in the first appeal and the learned Judge rejected the request holding that the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties being fatal, the same cannot be cured by impleading them in the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties by the trial Court. The decisions reported in Naba Kumar Hazra v. Radhashyam Mahish (supra), Chenthiperumal Pillai Chanthanamuthu Pillai v. D.M. Devasahayam (supra) and Kanakarathanammal v. V.S. Loganatha Mudaliar (supra), were relied upon before the learned Judge in support of the proposition that non-joinder of sisters is a fatal defect and the suit for partition is liable to be dismissed even on that ground alone.” 29. In the aforesaid decision, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh further held at para-31 as follows: “31. … … … The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Addepalli Venkata Laxmi v. Ayinampudi Narasimha Rao (supra), was one where the objection about the non-joinder of necessary parties was taken for the first time during the arguments in the letters patent appeal due to which the objection was not entertained, unlike the present case where the objection runs throughout the litigation right from the written statement.” 30. In the aforesaid case, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh further held at para-32 as follows: “32. … … … Much emphasis is attempted to be laid on the use of the word “mis-joinder of parties” in the written statement and in the issue framed by the trial Court, while the intent and purport is patent and clear that it was about the non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. … … … The decision in K. Bhaskar Rao v. K.A. Rama Rao (supra), following the decisions of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court apart from the decision of a Full Bench of Travancore Cochin is binding and the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties cannot be cured by impleading them in the appeal and is fatal to the suit for partition.” 31. Admittedly, the suit is instituted by the plaintiffs in the year 2001 for claiming the relief of partition. Admittedly, the defendants have taken a specific plea in the written statement in the beginning itself that the suit for partition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. An issue was also framed by the trial Court and evidence was adduced by both the parties. The plaintiffs did not evince any interest to add the daughters of late Venkata Ramayya as parties to the suit, for the reasons best known to them. For the foregoing reasons, in view of the case laws referred above, I hold that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs did not evince any interest to add the daughters of late Venkata Ramayya as parties to the suit, for the reasons best known to them. For the foregoing reasons, in view of the case laws referred above, I hold that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, I am accepting the finding of the trial Court that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered against the appellants/plaintiffs. 32. Point No.3:- Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the partition of plaint schedule properties ? The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaint schedule property came to the share of Venkata Ramayya under a registered partition deed dated 03-12-1957 and the said Venkata Ramayya died intestate. As stated supra, this Court held that the said Venkata Ramayya died testate in the year 1986 and he executed a Will dated 29-12-1985 and the same is his last testatement. His wife is 1st attestor. D.W.2 is 2nd attestor. P.W.1 admits that the wife of Venkata Ramayya i.e. grandmother is one of the attestors. The grandmother of the plaintiffs i.e. the wife of Venkata Ramayya alive till 1992. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are kept quiet for a period of 15 years and after 15 years of the death of late Venkata Ramayya, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for partition. In fact, no notice was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants for demanding partition prior to institution of the suit. 33. The plaintiffs relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is none other than the 1st plaintiff. He reiterated the contents of plaint in his evidence affidavit as P.W.1. In cross-examination, he admits that the 1st defendant and his father got lands at Taduvai village and the other sharers have lands at agency area and the lands at agency area cannot be sold due to ban. One of the attestors in the Will is grandmother of P.W.1. 34. Another witness P.W.2 clearly admits that he is not having talking terms with the 1st defendant for the last 30 years. Even though he is not talking terms with the defendants, his admission in cross-examination clinchingly supports the case of the defendants. One of the attestors in the Will is grandmother of P.W.1. 34. Another witness P.W.2 clearly admits that he is not having talking terms with the 1st defendant for the last 30 years. Even though he is not talking terms with the defendants, his admission in cross-examination clinchingly supports the case of the defendants. The crucial admissions made by P.W.2 are that Venkata Ramayya was hale and healthy till his death and he was also having cordial relationship with his wife and the lands owned by Venkata Ramayya are in the agency area and it is prohibited from alienation. He further admits that he is not having talking terms with the 1st defendant for the last 30 years and the plaintiffs’ father Satyanarayana got separated by himself soon after his marriage and the 1st defendant to assist his father in borrowing loans and cultivating the lands. P.W.2 totally supported the plea taken by the 1st defendant. 35. P.W.3 is another witness of the plaintiffs. As per his evidence, Venkata Ramayya is his maternal grandfather. He also clearly admits that he was aged about 25 years at the time of death of Venkata Ramayya and he does not know about the partition in between his maternal grandfather and his sons. He further admits that there are no talking terms in between him and the 1st defendant. His evidence clearly reveals that he is not having talking terms with the 1st defendant. The material on record reveals that Venkata Ramayya died in the year 1986. His wife affixed her thumb mark in the said Will executed by Venkata Ramayya and she was the 1st attestor and the wife of Venkata Ramayya also died in the year 1992 and the suit is instituted in the year 2001. Admittedly, no notice was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants for demanding partition of the plaint schedule properties. As on the date of suit, Venkata Ramayya and his wife are no more, they died much prior to the institution of the suit. The wife of Venkata Ramayya i.e. the 1st attestor in the Will asserted before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jeelugumilli, under Ex.B-3, that her husband executed Ex.B-1 Will and she was the attestor in the said Will. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are entitled to the relief of partition. 36. The wife of Venkata Ramayya i.e. the 1st attestor in the Will asserted before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jeelugumilli, under Ex.B-3, that her husband executed Ex.B-1 Will and she was the attestor in the said Will. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are entitled to the relief of partition. 36. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered against the appellants/plaintiffs. 37. I.A.No.5 of 2023:- This petition is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs with a prayer to receive the copy of Codicil dated 11-01-1986 and may be marked as Ex.A-17 for the proper adjudication of the appeal. 38. In the affidavit of the 3rd appellant/3rd petitioner, he stated that pending appeal respondent No.1 in the appeal approached the Revenue authorities on 14-4-2018 for the purpose of mutating the property mentioned in the schedule of the suit stating that the said properties were bequeathed to him by his father Venkata Ramayya under a Will dated 29-12-1985. The petitioner further reiterated in his affidavit that the Codicil dated 11-01-1986 was filed by the 1st respondent before the Revenue authorities and he came to know the same during the pendency of the present appeal. The claim of the 1st defendant is based on Ex.B-1 Will dated 29-12-1985. The case of the 1st defendant is that by virtue of Ex.B-1 Will, he has got right and title in Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the plaint schedule property. It was held by this Court that Ex.B-1 Will is proved by the 1st defendant. It is not the case of the appellants that by virtue of the alleged Codicil dated 11-01-1986, the said Will is cancelled. The alleged Codicil is dated 11-01-1986, the suit is instituted in the year 2001, whereas the present application is filed in the year 2023, after 22 years of the institution of the suit, that too at the fag end of the appeal. 39. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, AIR 1992 SC 700 . The apex Court held as follows: “The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. 39. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, AIR 1992 SC 700 . The apex Court held as follows: “The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a ‘cautious cognizance’ of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief.” 40. The facts and circumstances in the cited decision are different to the case on hand whereas the present petition is instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs at the fag end of the appeal, that too after 22 years of institution of the suit. As stated supra, the suit for partition itself is not at all maintainable because of non-joinder of parties. Therefore, no importance will be given to this interlocutory application. The reasons assigned in the affidavit of the petitioner are in no way helpful to the plaintiffs to decide the subject matter of this case. Hence, the application filed by the appellants vide I.A.No.5 of 2023 is dismissed. 41. I.A.No.4 of 2023:- This petition is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs with a prayer to permit the petitioners/appellants to raise an additional ground in the grounds of appeal as to “Whether the 1st respondent proved his right, title and ownership of the schedule properties in O.S.No.23 of 2001 by examining the witnesses to substantiate the Will dated 29-12-1985 without proving the subsequent codicil dated 11-01-1986 which alleged to have been executed by Singuluri Venkata Ramayya ?”. 42. The appellants also filed another application vide I.A.No.5 of 2023 to permit them to receive the said alleged Codicil dated 11-01-1986 as additional evidence. The said interlocutory application I.A.No.5 of 2023 was dismissed by this Court. As stated supra, the main suit for partition itself is not at all maintainable, because there are laches on the part of appellants, because of non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit for partition. The appellants/plaintiffs are not at all permitted to raise a new ground, that too after institution of 22 years of the suit. As stated supra, the main suit for partition itself is not at all maintainable, because there are laches on the part of appellants, because of non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit for partition. The appellants/plaintiffs are not at all permitted to raise a new ground, that too after institution of 22 years of the suit. Since I.A.No.5 of 2023 is dismissed, there are no merits in the present application I.A.No.4 of 2023. Hence, the application filed by the appellants vide I.A.No.4 of 2023 is also dismissed. 43. Point No.4:- Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law. There is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived by the trial Court. I believe the findings arrived by the trial Court are correct and no justifiable reasons have been shown by the appellants for arriving at a different conclusion. 44. Point No.5:- To what extent ? In the result, the appeal and I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2023 are dismissed without costs, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30-01-2006, passed in O.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, Eluru. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.