THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 2530 of 2011 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 390 of 2010 in O.S. No. 47 of 2003, filed by the petitioner praying to implead respondent No.13 as one of the defendant in the suit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and perused the order under revision. It is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that since during the cross- examination of defendant No.12, she came to know that item No.5 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by proposed respondent No.13, she should be impleaded as party-defendant to the suit, and the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner in that regard. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. According to the own admission of the petitioner, item No. 5 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by one Smt. Kantha under sale deed dated 03.05.1988. The said Smt. Kantha in turn sold the same to one Smt. Indiramma, who later sold the same to respondent No.13. The suit was filed in the year 2003. It is one for partition of the suit schedule property. The petitioner though had the knowledge of Smt. Indiramma having purchased item No.5 of the suit schedule property, she was not party-defendant to the suit. The present suit being one for partition of the suit schedule property, which is ancestral property, if one of the coparceners sells any part of thereof in favour of any third party, such third party will not accrue any absolute right in the property purchased, because any purchase made by him/her would be subject to partition of the ancestral properties. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision passed by the Court below refusing to implead respondent No.13 as party-defendant to the suit, and more so when the petitioner despite having knowledge that item No. 5 was sold much before filing of the suit schedule property, did not make the said purchasers as party-defendants to the suit. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P. and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Dated: 21st July, 2011 KSR