IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3951 OF 2008 Between: Lalam Narasayyamma …Petitioner A n d Kandregula Bapudaidu and four others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3951 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.07.2008 in I.A.No.522 of 2006 in O.S.No.175 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Anakapalle, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein, the plaintiff, seeking to implead the petitioner herein, third party, as D- 4, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of tile and recovery of possession and damages. The suit was originally filed against respondents 2 to 4 herein (D-1 to D-3). The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. While the matter was coming up for trial, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.522 of 2006 under order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the petitioner herein as 4th defendant in the suit on the ground that recently the plaintiff came to know that defendants 1 to 3 have created a nominal sale deed dated 11.07.2005 in favour of the petitioner/proposed D-4 in respect of the suit property with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiff therein and as such proposed D4 is a proper and necessary party to the suit. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a counter contending that the suit itself is not maintainable and is speculative in nature and is also barred by limitation and the remedy, if any, for the plaintiff is to file a separate suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The petitioner herein, proposed D-4, filed a counter contending that she purchased the suit land from D-1 to D-3 for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,08,200/- under a registered sale deed dated 11.07.2005 and obtained delivery of possession and ever since she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further contended that the plaintiff earlier filed O.S.No.15 of 1999 for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed on 24.10.2003 and the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff in the said suit itself. As the plaintiff has not questioned the title within three years, the suit is barred by limitation and she further contended that she is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the application, observing that the contentious issues raised by the parities can be decided at the time of trial and as the proposed D-4 purchased the property and the plaintiff is seeking declaration of title, impleadment of proposed D-4 would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and hence she is a proper party, though not a necessary party. Aggrieved by the same, the proposed D-4 filed the present civil revision petition. 5. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against D-1 to D-3 in respect of the suit land. The suit was filed in September, 2005. The plaintiff sought impleadment of petitioner/proposed D-4 on the ground that he came to know recently about the execution of the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 by D-1 to D- 3 in favour of petitioner/proposed D-4. The execution of the sale deed is not disputed by the defendants or the petitioner. According to the plaintiff, the said transaction is nominal and collusive. The defendants and petitioner assert that the plaintiff has no right in the property and the plaintiff’s claim was opposed in the earlier suit O.S.No.15 of 1999 filed by him for permanent injunction which was subsequently dismissed and that as rightful owners, they sold the land in favour of petitioner. The petitioner also contends that she purchased the suit land for a valuable consideration and ever since the date of sale deed, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants and petitioner also contend that the suit is barred by limitation and so as the suit itself is not maintainable, impleadment of the proposed D-4 is not necessary. 6. The question as to whether or not the suit is barred by limitation is to be considered by the trial Court during the course of trial. The genuineness or otherwise of the transaction contained in the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 does not also fall for consideration at this stage, as it is a matter to be considered on evidence. The sale deed is said to have been executed on 11.07.2005. It was only subsequently that the suit is filed in September, 2005. The petitioner/proposed D4 cannot, therefore, be said to have purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, as by the date of her purchase, the suit was not filed. The said transaction is not hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. As the suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and when the petitioner/proposed D-4 is setting up a rival claim by virtue of the sale deed, which was executed prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff ought to have impleaded the petitioner also in the suit, but according to the plaintiff, he came to know of the said sale only subsequent to filing of the suit and just prior to filing of the application. Under those circumstances, the petitioner/proposed D-4 would be a proper and necessary party to the suit so that there can be a comprehensive and effective adjudication of the dispute in the presence of all the parties concerned and claiming interest in the suit property. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon a decision of this Court in P.VIMALA DEVI AND OTHERS v. C.SUBOJINI AND OTHERS[1] wherein it was held that impleading a party arises only if they claim any relief against him or if such party intends to oppose the suit claim and the impleadment is not permissible to elicit information and such purpose would be served by summoning the proposed party as a witness. In the present case, the plaintiff is claiming the relief of declaration of title. The said relief affects the interest of the proposed party as well because she is also claiming title over the suit property. She is not only opposing the claim of title putfoward by the plaintiff over the suit land but is also setting up title in herself. It is not a case where the plaintiff seeks to implead the petitioner to elicit any information about the transaction of sale, but seeks declaration of title against the proposed D-4 as well. The decision cited is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a decision in SUNIL GUPTA v. KIRAN GIRHOTRA AND OTHERS[2] wherein the Apex Court held that in case of transfer of property pendente lite without leave of the Court, impleadment of such transferee cannot be permitted. There cannot be any dispute over the principle reiterated in the above decision regarding the transferee pendente lite, but the same does not apply to the present case for the simple reason that the transfer by D-1 to D-3 in favour of the petitioner was not during the pendency of the suit but was earlier to the filing of the suit. It is stated that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 1999 for permanent injunction was dismissed on 24.10.2003 and the appeal was disposed of on 06.06.2005. The transfer by D-1 to D-3 in favour of the petitioner was subsequent thereto i.e., 11.07.2005 and prior to filing of this suit. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the petitioner cannot be said to be a transferee pendente lite. The doctrine contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has, therefore, no application. The petitioner is, therefore, held to be a proper and necessary party to the suit. Her impleadment as a party defendant does not call for any interference. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th July, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 2008(2) ALT 11 [2] (2007)8 SCC 506