D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) IN these two revisions, this Court is called upon to answer the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge as regards the applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882, or Order 1 Rule 10 (2) c. P. C. to all suits irrespective of the nature of the suits or whether they are to be confined to certain types of suits. The learned Judge referred the matter in the light of the views expressed by the Apex Court in Khemchand shanker Choudhary v. Vishnu Hari Patil, in sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh, and also the view expressed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Kuna Ramulu v. Kuna annapurnamma.

( 3 ) THE learned Referring Judge, it appears, having felt that there is some divergence between the views expressed by the apex court in Khemchand Shanker Choudhary s case (1 supra) on the one hand, and Sarvinder singh s case (2 supra), which was relied on by a learned single Judge of this Court (T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.) in Kuna Ramulu scase on the other, referred the matter to a Division bench.

( 4 ) FACTS, in brief, appear to be that the suit was filed for partition, wherein the purchaser pendente lite, intended to come on record by way of making interlocutory applications i. A. Nos. 1330 and 1333 of 2002 and contest the suit. Perhaps, I. As were filed by the plaintiff, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, to implead the purchaser of the part of the suit property as defendant in the suit. The said applications were dismissed resulting in filing of the present two Civil Revision Petitions by the Legal Representatives of the plaintiff, since the original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-plaintiffs placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in khemchand Shanker Choudhary v. Vishnu har/ Patil (supra-1 ).

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants placed strong reliance on Section 52 of the transfer of Property Act, 1882, the judgment of the apex Court in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip singh (supra-2) and also the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Kuna ramulu v. Kuna Annapurnamma, wherein the learned Judge, following the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh (supra-2), held thatthe proposed parties are not necessary parties since the transaction was hit by Section 52 of the transfer of Property Act, and the purchasers purchased the property pendente lite. In this connection, it is to be seen that in Khemchand shanker Choudhary v. Vishnu Hari Patil (supra-1), the Apex Court held thus:"section 52 of the Transfer of Property act no doubt lays down that a trans feree pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound insofar as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil procedure clearly recognizes the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made. It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may surfer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings. But if he applies to be impleaded as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard. He can also prefer an appeal against an order made in the said proceedings but with the leave of the Appellate Court where he is not already brought on record. The position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of any suit oraproceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding, or an Official Receiver who takes over the assets of such a party on his insolvency. An heir or a legatee or an Official Receiver

Click Here to Read the rest of this document