Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None for the respondents though served.

2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 58/1999 dated 08.06.2007 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the suit as pendente lite transferee came to be rejected.

3. Shri Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the law is well settled that the pendente lite transferee can be impleaded in the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner himself has filed an application to be impleaded in the suit and any decree in the suit would affect the right of the petitioner in the suit property. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously dismissed the application on a spacious ground that there are no pleadings to that effect in the plaint. The learned counsel as such submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have also gone through the records as well as the impugned order. In order to consider as to whether the petitioner is to be impleaded as a party to the suit, it would be appropriate to note the scope and the meaning of doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation. The principle underlying Section 52 is that if during the pendency of any suit in a court of competent jurisdiction which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is directly and specifically in question, such property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such suit. If ultimately the title of the pendente lite transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee's title will not be affected. On the other hand, if the title of the pendente lite transferor is recognised or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then the transferee's title will be saved only in regard to that extent and the transfer in regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property to which the transferor is found not entitled, will be invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. If the transferor is found to have no right or title in such property the transferee will not have any title to the property.

5. In the present case, the respondent nos. 1 and 2/original plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and demolition against the respondent nos. 3 to 9/original defendant nos. 1 to 7 on the ground that the respondent nos.1 and 2 along with respondent nos. 5 to 9 were the owners in possession of the property known as “Sironi” surveyed under no.132/2 of Village Calangute. It is further their case that on 27.03.1999, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 trespassed into the suit property bearing survey no.132/2 and commenced the construction of a compound wall around the suit property. It is further their case that on 28.03.1999, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 dumped rubble stones and mud in the suit property and taking note of the fact that there were holidays in the month of March, they have taken law in their hands and trespassed into the property surveyed under no. 132/2 and attempted to make a road through the suit property. It is further their case that the said respondents have no right to the suit property and not entitled to construct a compound wall or any road through the said property. On the basis of suc