The main legal point established in the judgment is that an alienee pendente lite would always be bound by the verdict of the court in the suit and could be added as a defendant under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC if their substantial interest in the suit property depended upon the verdict.

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04/10/2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar vide which application Exh.31 filed by respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 herein for being added as defendants in Reg. Appeal No.351/2010, has been allowed.

3. Mr. Latange, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the original plaintiffs. They had preferred Reg. Civil Suit No.268/2008 for seeking partition and separate possession to the extent of half share of the suit land bearing No.151 and 743. By judgment dated 30/09/2010, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred the appeal before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 purchased a portion of the suit property to the extent of 20 R and 24 R from Gat No.151 on 06/11/2012. An application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC was preferred by them praying for being arrayed as defendants. Mr. Latange strenuously submits that the said purchase is prohibited by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and in the face of such a prohibition, the purchase of the property pendenti lite would not create any rights in the said applicants. The fate of the suit or the appeal which is the continuation of the suit, to be suffered by the original defendants will also have to be suffered by the subsequent purchasers.

4. Mr. Latange further submits that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are not bona fide purchasers. They reside in the same village in which the litigating parties reside and are therefore presumed to have the knowledge of the pending litigation. He further submits that these respondents have not paid any consideration to defendant No.4 while purchasing the said property. The intention is to complicate the litigation and cause obstruction in the path of the petitioners.

5. Learned Advocates for respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have supported the impugned order and have strenuously submitted that there cannot be a presumption that these respondents are not bona fide purchasers.

6. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shri Premanand Gajanan Naik and another v. Sachit Gajanan Naik and another [2014(6) All MR 6].

7. Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have relied upon the following judgments :-

(i) Somnath Banerjee v. Smt. Arti Rani Chakraborty and another, AIR 2010 Gauhati, 187,

(ii) Shuvam Construction Pvt.Ltd., v. Smt. Babita Mohanty and another, AIR 2010 Orissa, 65,

(iii) Gauri Shankar Pathak and others v. Dr. Shankaranand Upadhyay and others, AIR 2011 Patna 66,

(iv) Ramader Appala Narasinga Rao v. Chunduru Sarada, AIR 1976 Andhra Pradesh 226,

(v) Satyanarayan s/o Swaroopnarayan Khandelwal v. Chandrakalabai w/o Ramssahay Khandelwal and others, 2009(4) Mh.L.J.541,

(vi) Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another, 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 330.

8. Learned Advocates for the respective sides fairly state that there is no prohibition expressly carved out under the Civil Procedure Code or any other law by which a purchaser pendenti lite would always be prohibited from participating in any litigation pertaining to the portion of the suit property purchased by him. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act though creates an embargo on creating third party interest in the suit property during the pendency of the suit, it does not prescribe a prohibition on addition of the third party purchaser as a defendant in any proceeding. Section 52 reads as under :-

"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto : During the (pendency) in any Court having authority [within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or established beyond such limits] by [the Central Government] [***] of [any] suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or ot