JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of rejection of her application for impleadment in Title Suit No. 159 of 1995.

2. The petitioner is a purchaser of a part of the suit schedule property from one of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff.

The suit was instituted in the year 1995 and she has purchased the suit property through sale deed dated 08.07.2003. The defendants have objected to impleadment of the petitioner in the suit on the ground that the petitioner being a purchaser pendente lite would be bound by the decision in the suit and therefore, she is not a necessary party, and she not being a purchaser from a defendant in the suit is not even a proper party.

3. The doctrine of lis pendence has been incorporated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The object behind Section 52 is to ensure that not only parties to the suit shall be bound by any decision in the suit, those who are claiming a right through a party to the suit also must be bound by any decision in the suit.

4. Whether a person is a necessary party or a proper party in the suit has been explained by the Supreme Court in " Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member,