http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  262 of 2007

PETITIONER: DHANLAKSHMI & ORS.

RESPONDENT: P. MOHAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/01/2007

BENCH: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & V.S. SIRPURKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (@ S.L.P.(C) NO.5735 OF 2005)

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

       Leave granted.         This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order  dated 6.1.2005 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras  High Court in C.R.P. (P.D.) No.357 of 2004.  We have heard  Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants and  Mr. R. Nedumaran, learned counsel for the contesting  respondents.

       The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the  appellants herein against the order dismissing the  application filed by them to implead themselves in the suit  filed by the first respondent (P. Mohan) for partition of his  share of the property in O.S. No.82 of 2004.  According to  the appellants, they have purchased the properties from the  second, third, fourth and sixth respondents by two  registered sale deeds dated 18.6.1999 and 21.6.1999 and  they are the bonafide purchasers for the value and entitled  for alienors’ share in equity and, therefore, they are the  necessary parties for effective adjudication of the dispute in  O.S. No.82 of 2004.  The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur  came to the conclusion that since the sales in favour of the  appellants were covered by the doctrine of Lis Pendens and  since they can only have whatever rights their transferors  had,  it is necessary to deal with their rights separately and  dismissed the application.  Against that order, the  appellants preferred the revision before the High Court.   The High Court also dismissed the revision on the ground  that the appellants are not entitled to be impleaded since  the right that they may have cannot be larger than the right  of their vendors, assuming that they are bonafide  purchasers.  The High Court holding so, dismissed the  revision on the ground that there is no justification to  interfere with the orders passed by the court below.   Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come before  this Court.

       Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act reads thus: "52.   Transfer of property pending suit  relating thereto -- During the pendency in any  Court having authority within the limits of India  excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or  established beyond such limits by the Central  Government of any suit or proceedings which is  not collusive and in which any right to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

immovable property is directly and specifically in  question, the property cannot be transferred or  otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or  proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other  party thereto under any decre or order which  may be made therein, except under the  authority of the Court and on such terms as it  may impose. Explanation -- For the purposes of this section,  the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be  deemed to commence from the date of the  presentation of the plaint or the institution of  the proceeding in a Court of competent  jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or  proceeding has been disposed of by a final  decree or order and complete satisfaction or  discharge of such decree or order has been  obtained, or has become unobtainable by  reason of the expiration of any period of  limitation prescribed for the execution thereof  by any law for the time being in force."                 Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit.   In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly  purchased the undivided shares of the respondents  nos.2,3,4 & 6.  It is not in dispute that the first respondent  P. Mohan has got an undivided share in the said suit  property.  Because of the purchase by the appellants of the  undivided share in the suit property, the rights of the first  respondent herein in the suit or proceeding will not affect  his right in the suit property by enforcing a partition.   Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property  from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to  come on record in order to work out the equity in their  favour in the final decree proceedings.  In our opinion, the  appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit,  which is now pending before the Trial Court.  We also make  it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed  by the mortgagee in these proceedings.   

       We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court  and order the application for impleadment filed by the  appellants herein and array them as party defendants  nos.7, 8 & 9 in the Suit.  The appellants will now be at  liberty to file the written statements in the pending suit.           In view of the order now passed by this Court, the  preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court in the absence  of the appellants cannot stand.  We, therefore, set aside the  preliminary decree and restore the suit to its original  number and direct the Trial Court to dispose of the same on  merits and affording opportunity to the appellants to file a  written statement and after framing the necessary issues.   The Trial Court is directed to dispose of this suit within six  months from today.

       The Civil Appeal stands allowed on the above terms.  No  costs.