IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 2140 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 1645/2010 IN OS.163/2008 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA ..................................................... PETITIONER: ------------------- REMANI.M.K, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.KUNJUNNI ACHAN, MALIKAPARAMBIL, VANIYAKKADU DESOM, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN SRI.M.N.SANJITH SRI.JAISON JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. P.B.RAMESH, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, USHA NIVAS, PALLIPURAM, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA-688 524. 2. M.GOPAKUMAR, S/O.MAHALAKSHMI AMMA, MALIEKKAL, NANDANAM, AHMED HAJI ROAD, CHERIYAPALLY, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU OP(C).No. 2140 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.1645 OF 2010 IN O.S. NO. 163 OF 2008 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, CHERTALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE STU THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2140 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT First respondent appears through counsel. Second respondent is served but there is no response. 2. First respondent filed O.S.No.163 of 2008 in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Cherthala against the second respondent for a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Pending the suit, petitioner claimed to have purchased the suit property. In view of that purchase, petitioner wanted to be impleaded as additional defendant in the suit and filed I.A.No.1645 of 2010 for the said purpose. That application was dismissed by Ext.P1, order dated 01.03.2011. The said order is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel submits that though a purchaser pendente lite, petitioner has valid contentions to be raised in the suit and hence petitioner is a proper, if not a necessary party to the litigation for a proper and effective adjudication of all the disputes involved. Learned counsel contends that Ext.P1, order forecloses opportunity for petitioner to raise his contentions in the suit. Learned counsel for first respondent would contend that O.P(C).No.2140 of 2011 -: 2 :- the assignment in favour of the petitioner is collusive, fraudulent and intended to defeat the claim made by the first respondent in the suit against the second respondent, apart from being hit by Sec.52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, "the Act”) 4. This Court in Vijayalekshmi Vs. Sherly (2011(2) KLT 460) has taken the view that a purchaser pendente lite can be impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit. That of course was a suit for money and the assignment was made after the institution of suit but before the attachment was effected but, having regard to the contentions the purchaser wanted to raise, it was held that he could be impleaded as a party. 5. May be a purchaser pendente lite is bound by Sec.52 of the Act and such transactions are not to be encouraged by the Courts. But, if purchaser has contentions to be raised in the suit as against the enforceability of the agreement allegedly executed between respondents 1 and 2, it is only appropriate that he is given an opportunity to do so. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 even claimed that there is a supplementary agreement between them for sale of the property to a stranger and share the profits. However these are matters which the trial court has to look into. O.P(C).No.2140 of 2011 -: 3 :- 6. Having regard to the various contentions that the petitioner urges, I am inclined to think that petitioner is a proper, if not a necessary party to the litigation so that all the contentions that petitioner intends to raise in the suit and relevant for a decision in the suit can be decided in the very same suit rather than petitioner being driven to file a separate suit to protect the title he claims over the property. Resultantly this original petition is allowed. Ext.P1, order dated 01.03.2011 is set aside and I.A.No.1645 of 2010 in O.S.No.163 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Cherthala will stand allowed. Petitioner shall be impleaded as an additional second defendant in the suit and be given opportunity to file written statement, if any. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-