( 1 ) THIS application is filed by third party to appeal suit under Order I rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to implead himself as Respondent No. 23 in as. No. 78 of 1994. Before noticing the raiso detre for the application, the background of appeal suit may be noticed as under.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 9 to 13 (hereafter called, the plaintiffs) and one another filed o. S. No. 456 of 1984 on the file of the court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga reddy District, which was later transferred to the Court of District Judge, Ranga Reddy district, and renumbered as O. S. No. 9 of 1993, against Respondents 1 to 5 and their mother (hereafter called, the defendants) for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties which include agricultural lands and residential houses. The plaintiffs alleged that their paternal grand-mother Chandramma executed a Will dated 28. 9. 1978 (marked in the suit as ex. A. 1) bequeathing her half share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs and that the release deed (marked as Ex. A. 7) executed by Chandramma on 6. 3. 1969 in favour of mother of Defendants 2 to 6 is not out of free Will of Chandramma that it was obtained under undue influence and coercion and that the same does not divest Chandramma of her half share in the suit schedule properties. After conducting trial, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs directing partition of half share of the plaintiffs and further ordering a separate enquiry regarding mesne profits. Aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 8. 9. 1993 the defendants filed a. S. No. 78 of 1994. During the pendency of the suit, first defendant Pentamma who is mother of Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 died and her two daughters were brought on record as Defendants 16 and 17 as legal representatives of Pentamma.

( 3 ) BE that at it is, the Trial Court on an appropriate application filed by the decree holders being LA. No. 2241 of 1993 passed orders on 6. 10. 1998 determining the mesne profits payable by the judgment debtors to the decree holders. Aggrieved by the same both parties have filed civil revision petitions being CRP No. 5538 of 1998 (by plaintiffs) and C. R. P. No. 27 of 1999 (by defendants ). These applications are also being heard along with A. S. No. 78 of 1994. At that stage, one Ramesh Chawla has filed present C. M. P. No. 14246 of 2004 seeking impleadment in the proceedings.

( 4 ) IN support of the prayer for impleading, petitioners General Power of attorney, Sri Subhash Chawla, filed an affidavit ensuing allegations. The petitioner purchased house bearing Nos. 14-23/5, 14-23/4 and 14-23/3 admeasuring 500 sq yards from Respondent Nos. 23 and 24 herein (who are Respondent Nos. 16 and 17 in the appeal suit) and one K. Srinivas @ Srinivasa Rao, for sale consideration of rs. 24,47,116/- (Rupees Twenty four lakhs forty seven thousand one hundred and sixteen only), that he is a bona fide purchaser of the said house including the site without the knowledge of the pendency of the appeal. It is also stated mat before purchasing the property the petitioner obtained encumbrance certificate and their enquiry revealed that properties belong to pentamma who got properties under Will from her father-in-law, and also by reason of release deed executed by her mother-in- law Chandramma. It is also further alleged that in the family settlement among sons of pentamma the property purchased by petitioner was allotted to Respondent No. 23 and that there was family settlement between mother and two daughters whereunder 500 sq. yards purchased by the petitioner was gifted to the daughters that they obtained permission from Alwal Gram Panchayat and constructed mulgies in 1980. It is further alleged that when the petitioner was taking steps for construction Sri C. Balagopal, advocate issued a registered notice informing about the pendency of A. S. No. 78 of 1994 and also communicating t