THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3835 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 26.03.2009, in I.A.No.265 of 2008 in O.S.No.73 of 2003 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Rangareddy District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 CPC to get impleaded as defendants 9 to 12, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. None appears for the other respondents. Perused the records. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit against the respondents 2 to 8 for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendants have filed written statement contesting the suit. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, D3 (R4 herein) alienated certain extents out of the plaint schedule land in favour of the petitioners under registered sale deeds. Based on the said transactions, petitioners, who are third parties, sought to come on record as defendants 9 to 12, by filing I.A.No.265 of 2008. 1st respondent herein opposed the same. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the transactions in favour of the petitioners are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore they cannot be impleaded as proper or necessary parties. 4. It is to be noted that the suit is one for partition. Petitioners claim to have purchased a portion of the suit property from the 3rd defendant during the pendency of the suit under registered sale deeds. Thus, the third party rights have been created in respect of a portion of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Petitioners, who are the alienees from the 3rd defendant, no doubt, cannot claim better rights than what their vendor-3rd defendant had and whatever decree is passed in the suit, either in favour of or against the 3rd defendant, would be binding on the petitioners, who are transferees pendente lite. However, the suit being one for partition, the presence of the petitioners would become necessary in the context of working out equities in the event of the suit being decreed and 3rd defendant being allotted a share. 5. In DHANALAKSHMI & OTHERS v. P.MOHAN & OTHERS[1], the apex Court held that in the event of sale of undivided share by the co-sharers during the pendency of the suit, the bona fide purchasers of the same would be entitled for alienation of such share in equity and therefore they would be proper and necessary parties to the suit. It was further held as follows: “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”. 6. In KESARI GOUTHAM REDDY v. VELPULA JOHN VICTOR MACAULAY AND ANOTHER[2], this Court held that where a purchaser pendente lite intends to come on record to safeguard his interest in a pending litigation, it would not be just and proper to dismiss such application. 7. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions, which are applicable to the facts of the present case, which is also a suit for partition, it is held that the petitioners, who are purchasers of a portion of the suit property from the 3rd defendant though pendente lite, would be proper and necessary parties as their presence would be required for the purpose of working out the equities in the event of the suit being decreed and a share being allotted to the 3rd defendant. Hence, petitioners are permitted to get themselves impleaded as defendants 9 to 12. On such impleadment, petitioners would be entitled to file written statement and the 1st respondent-plaintiff would be at liberty to file rejoinder. In that view of the matter, it is held that the impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th December, 2011. Tsy [1] AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1062 [2] 2007 (5) ALD 656