ORDER : B.S.BHANUMATHI, J. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.04.2025 dismissing I.A.No.227 of 2023 in O.S.No.61 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed by the third party/ revision petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to implead him as defendant No.5 in the suit. 2. The respondents No.1 to 3 filed the suit against the respondents No.4 to 7 seeking partition of Ac.4.56 cents of land in Sy.No.1274/B of Nannuru Village, Orvakal Mandal, Orvakal Sub- division, Kurnool Division, Kurnool District bounded by the following boundaries: East : Agricultural land in Sy.No.1287. West : Agricultural land in Sy.No.1274. North : Agricultural land in Sy.No.1274/ C. South : Open plots of D-2 venture. 3. Pending the suit, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.227 of 2023 to get himself impleaded. It has to be noted that pending the enquiry in I.A.No.227 of 2023, the respondent No.1/ plaintiff No.1 died. As such, the respondents No.8 to 10 were added as legal representatives. 4. The petitioner contended briefly as follows: a. The plaint schedule property originally belongs to Pinjari Hussain Sab who is grandfather of plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. Pinjari Hussain Sab had agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4.56 cents in Sy.No.1274/B and Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.1274/D of Nannur Village called as “Gattuchenu Morsu” in two parts i.e., eastern and northern parts. Pinjari Hussain Sab died intestate leaving his wife and two sons. After his death, his wife (Smt. Hussainamma) and two sons i.e., Somanna @ D.Nannuru Swamulu (father of the defendant No.1) and Jalal Sab (father of the plaintiffs), succeeded the estates of Pinjari Hussain Sab, sold Ac.9.06 Cents under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.521/1956, dated 31.05.1956 to Balanna, S/o Kistapuram Boya Ramanna within the following boundaries: East : Lands belong to Boyapalle Veera Reddy and Konda Reddy. West : Land belongs to Mandla Seshanna. North : Boundary (dande) belongs to Pinjari Hasamma’s land. South : Lands belong to Kottamasum Devaiah and Mandla Seshanna. b. The plaint schedule property is within the above said boundaries. As such, instead of mentioning the names of the land owners, the plaintiffs got mentioned the survey numbers as the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. North : Boundary (dande) belongs to Pinjari Hasamma’s land. South : Lands belong to Kottamasum Devaiah and Mandla Seshanna. b. The plaint schedule property is within the above said boundaries. As such, instead of mentioning the names of the land owners, the plaintiffs got mentioned the survey numbers as the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. At the time of the execution of the sale deed dated 31.05.1956, instead of mentioning the above two survey numbers in which the total extent of land i.e., Ac.9.06 Cents was situated, inadvertently, only Sy.No.1274/ D was mentioned. Taking advantage of the same, the suit was filed. At no point of time for more than 65 years, the plaintiffs have ever enjoyed the property or challenged the sale deed. The total extent of land in Sy.No.1274/D is Ac.11.06 Cents. Mandla Seshanna got Ac.6.56 cents in the said survey number. The remaining eastern part of the land of Ac.4.50 cents was in possession and enjoyment of Hussain Sab. Balanna died intestate on 02.05.1999 leaving his wife Mandla Pedda Ayyamma and others as his legal heirs and they were in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of Ac.9.06 Cents spread in the above said two survey numbers. They executed a registered G.P.A.–cum–sale agreement vide Doc.No.920/2007, dated 09.07.2007 in favour of Pesala Shobha Rani for Ac.8.06 Cents i.e., (i) Ac.4.56 Cents in Sy.No.1274/B and (ii) Ac.3.50 Cents in Sy.No.1274/D authorizing her to deal with the said property on their behalf. In the capacity of registered G.P.A. holder, Pesala Shobha Rani sold the said land to S. Noor Ahmed and Md. Ibrahim under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.969/2007, dated 16.07.2007. Thereafter, S.Noor Ahmed and Md.Ibrahim enquired in Sub-Registrar’s office, Orvakal for sale of their lands. They were informed that the lands in Sy.Nos.1274/B and 1274/D are dotted lands. Hence, they made an application for issue of no objection certificate to the Tahsildar, Orvakal and R.D.O., Kurnool. After thorough enquiry, the R.D.O., Kurnool issued proceeding vide Rc.c.273/2009, dated 09.01.2010 granting N.O.C. for these lands with a request to S.R.O., Orvakal to register the said lands. Thereafter, S.Noor Ahmed and Md.Ibrahim applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. After thorough enquiry, the R.D.O., Kurnool issued proceeding vide Rc.c.273/2009, dated 09.01.2010 granting N.O.C. for these lands with a request to S.R.O., Orvakal to register the said lands. Thereafter, S.Noor Ahmed and Md.Ibrahim applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. Recognizing their right and possession of Ac.2.28 Cents in Sy.No.1274/B and Ac.1.75 Cents in Sy.No.1274/D, totaling Ac.4.03 cents each, the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books and title deed No.P775534 for patta No.2206 in the name of Noor Ahmed and pattadar pass book and title deed No.P775536 for patta No.2207 in the name of Md. Ibrahim. S.Noor Ahmed executed a registered gift deed in favour of his wife S.Ruksana in respect of Ac.4.03 Cents vide Doc.No.2244/2010, dated 06.09.2010 and delivered actual possession and enjoyment of the property to her. Md.Ibrahim executed a registered gift deed in favour of his son Md.Javed vide Doc.No.2245/2010, dated 06.09.2010 for his property of Ac.4.03 Cents and delivered actual possession and enjoyment of the property to him. Thus, S.Ruksana and Md.Javed are the owners of the above said lands. They joined with other land owners viz., E.Aruna, S.P.Khadri, M.Pedda Ayyamma and got their lands in survey Nos.1274/B, 1274/D and 1274/E totaling to an extent of Ac.12.76 Cents converted into non-agricultural land/ commercial land vide proceedings in Rc.F.667/2011, dated 06.04.2011 issued by the R.D.O., Kurnool. Thereafter, S.Ruksana sold Ac.4.03 Cents under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.3570/2011, dated 07.10.2011 for valid consideration to the following persons: (i) Bekam Hari Prasad Reddy (ii) B.Gopal Reddy (iii) D.Venkateswara Reddy (iv) G. Venkateswara Reddy c. Similarly, on the same day, Md.Javed also sold Ac.4.03 Cents under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.3571/2011, dated 07.10.2011 for a valid consideration to the same vendees mentioned above. d. The purchasers were again forced to obtain N.O.C. from R.D.O., Kurnool vide L.Dis.(F).372/2012, dated 23.02.2012 as the S.R.O., Orvakal took an objection on the ground that the lands are A.W. lands. After obtaining N.O.C. from the R.D.O. Kurnool, the purchasers sold the land to an extent of Ac.4.56 Cents in Sy.No.1274/B and Ac.1.22 Cents in Sy.No.1274/D, totaling Ac.5.78 cents to the present petitioner under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.182/2014, dated 31.01.2014 keeping the remaining land of Ac.2.28 Cents on the western side for themselves. After obtaining N.O.C. from the R.D.O. Kurnool, the purchasers sold the land to an extent of Ac.4.56 Cents in Sy.No.1274/B and Ac.1.22 Cents in Sy.No.1274/D, totaling Ac.5.78 cents to the present petitioner under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.182/2014, dated 31.01.2014 keeping the remaining land of Ac.2.28 Cents on the western side for themselves. The revenue authorities mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deed by recognizing his rights, title, interests and possession and enjoyment of Ac.4.56 Cents in Sy.No.1274/B and Ac.1.22 cents in Sy.No.1274/D, totaling Ac.5.78 Cents. Thereafter, for the purpose of K.U.D.A. approval, the petitioner joined with other land owners in Sy.No.1276 of Nannur Village, namely M/s. New Kalki Real Estates, Kurnool for the purpose of land approval for laying plots. On the joint application for approval to lay plots with M/s. New Kalki Real Estates, Kurnool represented by its managing partners Sri Vadla Narasimhaiah and others, K.U.D.A. approved the layout vide File No.1106/0048/LP/KUDA/2021 & L.P.No.3/2022/1106/KUDA/DPMS/OVKL., dated 18.05.2022, the land was divided into house plots under the name of “Manali Town Ship”. The petitioner and others sold several plots to various purchasers. The sale of un-sold plots is going on. However, having no semblance over the plaint schedule property, the suit was filed by the respondents No.1 to 3. When the petitioner attended the registrar office recently, he came to know about the ex parte interim injunction obtained by the respondents No.1 to 3 for not registering the sale of plots. The said ex parte interim order was obtained by suppressing the facts and misleading the Court. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 colluded. They are not entitled to the decree sought in the suit. Under these circumstances, since the petitioner is a proper and necessary party for just adjudication of the dispute, the petition is filed. 5. The petition was opposed by filing counter by the respondents No.2 and 3 (same was adopted by the respondents No.8 to 10) as follows: It is a fact that the plaint schedule property belongs to late Pinjari Hussain Sab, who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs. 5. The petition was opposed by filing counter by the respondents No.2 and 3 (same was adopted by the respondents No.8 to 10) as follows: It is a fact that the plaint schedule property belongs to late Pinjari Hussain Sab, who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs. It is also a fact that he had Ac.4.45 Cents in Sy.No.1274/B and Ac.9.06 Cents in Sy.No.1274/D. On 31.05.1956, after the death of Pinjari Hussain Sab, being legal heirs, his wife and two sons sold Ac.9.06 Cents in Sy.No.1274/D to Balanna under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.521/1956. The property covered by the sale deed is different from the plaint schedule property and the boundaries are also totally different. After the death of Balanna, his legal heirs executed G.P.A. in favour of Pasala Shobha Rani by falsely including the plaint schedule survey number. As per the sale deed dated 31.05.1956, Balanna had only Ac.9.06 Cents in Sy.No.1274/D. After his death, being the agent of legal heirs of Balanna, Pasala Shobha Rani sold Ac.3.50 Cents to the purchasers. On 30.03.2021, the legal heirs of Balanna sold Ac.3.31 Cents to Ponguru Venkateshwar Reddy and others under a registered sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.1274/D. The remaining land is still in possession of the legal heirs of Balanna. Till today, the physical possession of the plaint schedule property is with the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. The legal heirs of Balanna did not have any legal right over the plaint schedule property to execute any conveyance deed in favour of any person. Thus, the purchasers did not have any valid title. After filing the suit, the petitioner and his men created false revenue record. As per the R.O.R filed by the petitioner, Manali Town Ship is shown as the owner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim ownership. Except the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1, neither the petitioner nor the Manali Town Ship has right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property. The property covered in the sale deeds of the petitioner is totally different from the plaint schedule property. The petitioner filed this petition with dishonest intention to grab the said schedule property. He is not a proper and necessary party to this suit. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The property covered in the sale deeds of the petitioner is totally different from the plaint schedule property. The petitioner filed this petition with dishonest intention to grab the said schedule property. He is not a proper and necessary party to this suit. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner failed to establish that Pinjari Hussain Sab had an extent of Ac.4.56 Cents in Sy.No.1274/B, Ac.3.50 Cents in Sy.No.1274/D, in total, an extent of Ac.11.06 Cents and that the petitioner failed to explain the discrepancy in the land owned and possessed by Pinjari Hussain Sab and also that discrepancy in the extent of land shown in Ex.P14, Ex.P15 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 makes the case of the petitioner doubtful. 7. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred this revision petition. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the total extent of the property possessed by Pinjari Hussain Sab is Ac.9.06 Cents in two survey numbers 1274/B and 1274/D and that the total extent of land in survey No.1274/B owned by Pinjari Hussain Sab is Ac.4.56 Cents only and the said property was already sold to one Balanna and it is incorrect to state that Pinjari Hussain Sab has more extent of land in the said survey number leaving the same to be partitioned by the parties to the suit. He further submitted that the suit schedule property is already in the possession of the revision petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 31.01.2014 which is already stated in the facts pleaded. He further submitted that the boundaries of the plaint schedule property were described with reference to the survey numbers, but not the names of the neighbouring owners to avoid identity of the property which was already sold. It is his further argument that when the property was sold to Balanna, the property extended in two survey numbers was wrongly shown in one survey number only and therefore, taking advantage of the same, the suit was filed after more than a half century of time. 9. It is his further argument that when the property was sold to Balanna, the property extended in two survey numbers was wrongly shown in one survey number only and therefore, taking advantage of the same, the suit was filed after more than a half century of time. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 3, 8 to 10/ plaintiffs No.2 to 6 submitted that the suit schedule property was not sold to any one and the total property of Ac.9.06 Cents sold is in the survey No.1274/D and therefore, the proposed party has no right in the plaint schedule property and as such, he is not a necessary party in a suit for partition. 10. As can be seen from the record and the contentions, the question whether Pinjari Hussain Sab has total land of Ac.9.06 cents in survey number 1274/D or the same was extended in two survey numbers 1274/B and 1274/D is crucial in the light of the contentions raised by the proposed party. It is settled law that the boundaries prevail over the extent or the survey number of the land. As can be seen from the record, there is no proof that late Pinjari Hussain Sab had owned and possessed both Ac.9.06 Cents in survey No.1274/D and Ac.4.56 Cents in survey No. 1274/B. As such, it is necessary to take evidence to examine whether the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of the property sold under the sale deed dated 31.05.1956. This question can be answered with reference to the boundaries of the property sold under the sale deed dated 31.05.1956. Under these circumstances, having interest in the property in the suit, the proposed party is a necessary party to the suit to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as the said property was not left by late Pinjari Hussain Sab as pleaded in the plaint, though the proposed party may not seek a share in the suit schedule property. Certainly he can resist the relief sought in the suit by demonstrating that the case pleaded by the plaintiff is false or incorrect and to avoid passing a collusive decree. The case of the petitioner deserves consideration in the adjudication of the suit. It is not a frivolous contention to interrupt the suit proceedings. Even if he files a separate suit, it leads to multiplicity of proceedings. The case of the petitioner deserves consideration in the adjudication of the suit. It is not a frivolous contention to interrupt the suit proceedings. Even if he files a separate suit, it leads to multiplicity of proceedings. The trial Court failed to examine the above aspects in the light of the contentions raised by the parties and erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a necessary or proper party. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The Order dated 21.04.2025 dismissing I.A.No.227 of 2023 in O.S.No.61 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool is set aside and the petition in I.A.No.227 of 2023 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.