The subsequent purchaser of properties after the filing of a suit is bound by the decree under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

1.The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in OS.No.1987/1980 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem, which suit was renumbered as OS.No.14/1987 and taken on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, filed the suit for partition and a preliminary decree for partition and allotment of 1/5th share of the plaintiff was passed on 9.4.1981. Subsequently, the petitioner/plaintiff applied for final decree in IA.No.923/1985, before the Sub Court, Salem. By that time, one minor Singaravelu and Kanagambal have filed a suit in OS.No.922/1984, before the Sub Court, Salem for partition and the same was pending. Yet another suit in OS.No.172/1987 before the Sub Court, Salem was filed by one Rajaratinam for declaration and the same was also pending. The original suits in OS.No.922/1984 and OS.No.172/1987 were taken together along with IA.No.923/1985 in OS.No.14/1987 by the Subordinate Judge, Salem, which court by judgement and decree dated 26.7.1996 dismissed the suits in OS.No.922/1984 and OS.No.172/1987 and also dismissed IA.No.923/1985 in OS.No.14/1987. As against the same, the petitioner/plaintiff in IA.No.923/1985 in OS.No.14/1987 has preferred this civil revision petition.

2.For the purpose of disposing of this civil revision petition, few facts are necessary, which are narrated here under:-

One Senniappa Nadar had his 1st wife, Kunjammal, through whom he had a son and a daughter, viz. Thavasimuthu and Periyanayagam, who died in or about 1947 and after the death of Kunjammal, Senniappa Nadar married Rajammal as 2nd wife, through whom, he got two daughters, viz. Rajammal and Susila. Thavasimuthu died leaving behind him, his wife Kanagambal and a son Singaravelu, who are the plaintiffs in OS.No.922/1984. The plaintiff in OS.No.14/1987, Rajammal is the 2nd wife of Senniappa Nadar. Radhamani and Susila, who are the defendants 3 and 4 in the said suit are the daughters of Rajammal, the plaintiff in the said suit. The plaintiff in OS.No.172/1987, Rajaratinam is the purchaser of certain items of the properties, after filing of the suit by Rajammal in OS.No.14/1987, which suit was filed for declaration and for possession of the properties purchased by him.

3.OS.No.922/1984 and OS.No.172/1987 and IA.No.923/1985 in OS.No.14/ 1987 were all tried together by the court below and both the original suits and the application for passing of final decree were all dismissed.

4.IA.No.923/1985 in OS.No.14/1987, which was filed by the revision petitioner for passing of final decree, was dismissed on two grounds, viz. (1) Periyanayagam, sister of Thavasimuthu is said to have been died and her legal representatives were not brought on record as parties to the final decree proceedings and (2) Rajaratinam, the subsequent purchaser, who is the plaintiff in OS.No.172/1987 was not made as a party to the final decree proceedings.

5.With regard to 1st ground, the learned advocate for the revision petitioner would contend that factually, the information furnished to the trial court that Periyanayagam is died, is wrong. The learned advocate for the revision petitioner has pointed out that the notice sent to Periyanayagam, who is the 1st respondent in the civil revision petition, was received by her and incidentally pointed out that the bailiff made an endorsement on the notice served upon Periyanayagam on 25.3.2000 and the bailiff's endorsement is dated 27.3.2000. This court also perused the service of notice in the civil revision petition and it is made out that Periyanayagam received the notice on 25.3.2000 and the same was reported by the bailiff on 27.3.2000. As such, the information furnished to the trial court that Periyanayagam is died is wrong and that therefore, the question of bringing the legal representatives of Periyanayagam does not at all arise in this case.

6.As far as the 2nd ground that Rajaratinam was not made as a party to the final decree proceedings is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the