The doctrine of lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers to partition suits; thus, the trial court erred in rejecting the impleadment application to ensure complete resolution of the property dispute.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs :

a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash the Order dated 18.11.2019, passed by the Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, dismissing I.A. No.23 in O.S. No. 146/2006, at Annexure-A.

b) to allow I.A. No.23 in O.S. No.146/2006; on the file of the Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala.

c) issue any other appropriate writ, or order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard.

3. Petitioners have filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed exparte on 23.6.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners executed a registered sale deed dated 7.3.2011 in favour of H.Narasimha Raju and thereafter, he has executed a registered gift deed on 11.1.2014 in favour of respondent no.7- H.Arun Kumar. It is submitted that respondents no.1 to 5 filed miscellaneous petition No.9/2011 seeking to recall the exparte judgment and decree and the said miscellaneous petition came to be allowed on 8.1.2014; and after restoring the suit, the petitioner filed an application to implead respondent no.7, who is the present owner of the property, based on the gift deed.

4. The trial Court without considering the same, rejected the application holding that the judgment and decree granted in the suit binds the subsequent purchaser, by applying the principle of lis pendence. It is submitted that the sale in question has taken place when there were no proceedings pending between the parties. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by permitting respondent no.7 to come on record.

5. Per contra, Sri S.G.Hegde, learned counsel for respondent no.5 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that, the trial Court considering the settled principles of law that, the subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree for partition and, by following the decision of this Court in the case of Basavaraj alias Madhu vs. Smt. Suvarnamma and others , 2017 (1) AKR 513 held that, he is not a necessary party. It is submitted that, even the suit is dismissed and thereafter sale has taken place and before filing the appeal, if the sale takes place, the principles of lis pendence applies, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirpal Kaur vs. Jitender Pal Singh and Others , (2015) AIR (SC) 2967. It is submitted that, the suit in the case is for partition and separate possession and admittedly respondent no.7 is a subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the proceedings and the decree passed in the suit binds him. Hence, he is not a necessary and proper party to adjudicate the suit. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.5, meticulously perused the material on record and I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides.

7. The petitioners filed O.S.No.146/2006 seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit came to be decreed exparte on 23.6.2010, which was later restored by allowing the miscellaneous petition no.9/2011 on 8.1.2014. The material available on record indicates that, the plaintiffs have sold the suit schedule property on 7.3.2011. Admittedly, on the date of sale, miscellaneous petition was not pending and the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed exparte. Later, respondents 1 to 5 filed miscellaneous petition no.9/2011 which came to be allowed on 8.1.2014 and the suit was restored. After restori