Third party claiming a new right cannot be held as a necessary party.

The revision petitioner sought to be impleaded in O.S.No.1141 of 1994 filed by the first respondent against the respondents 2 to 9. The application I.A.No.627 of 2002 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and therefore, this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the purchaser of the suit property and therefore, he is a necessary party. The first respondent filed the suit for "directing the defendants 1 to 5 to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/trustee." According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no trust and the trust deed dated 27.11.1992 makes no mention of the suit property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit property belonged to one Somasundaram. He had executed a Will on 8.6.1990 and after his death, it had devolved upon his grand children and the petitioner had purchased the suit property under three sale deeds dated 15.3.1996, 4.5.1996 and 2.8.1996. The vendors in the sale deeds were grand children of Somasundaram, who are not parties to the suit and therefore, the dismissal of the application on the ground that the purchase made by the petitioner is lis pendens is not correct. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if a decree is granted to the first respondent, then his valuable right will be directly affected and therefore, he should be impleaded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner first respondent and the other respondents are family members and they may collude and cheat the bonafide purchaser namely, the petitioner and deprive of him his right, title and interest in the suit property. The following decisions were relied on:-

(i) Savitri Devi v. District Judge (1999)2 Supreme Court Cases 577)

(ii) R.Rathinavel Chettiar v. V.Sivaraman (1999)4 Supreme Court Cases 89)

(iii) Bakthavatsalam v.Anjapuli (2001(1)CTC 19)

3. Learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand would submit that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit. He had "purchased" litigation. The first respondent had effected a paper publication in 1995 that this property was a trust property and that any purchase will be at their own risk and in spite of that the petitioner had purchased the suit property. He would also submit that the pronouncements of this court as well as the Supreme Court have been to the effect that a purchase pendente lite is not a necessary party. According to the learned counsel, the court below had rightly dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following decisions:-

(i) Bakthavatsalam v.Anjapuli (2001(1)CTC 19)

(ii) Abdul Aziz v. District Judge (AIR 1994 Allahabad 167)

(iii) Sarvinder Singh v.Dalip Singh (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 539)

(iv) R.R.Square etc., v. Mrs.Shobalatha Debi (1997 -2-L.W.691 and

(v) E.Somasekaran & another v. Kanchana & others (2003-3-L.W.773)

4. The factual background is this: The suit was filed on 20.10.1994. On 24.10.1994, the first respondent issued a notice to the Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation, not to include the names of the defendants in the Revenue Records on 9.11.1995, the publication in 'Thinamalar' was effected. In 1996, the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner are said to have been executed. On 10.2.1999, an exparte decree was passed. Thereafter, an application was filed to set aside the exparte decree and the same was allowed. On 7.10.2002, the present application has been filed.

5.The plaint and the written statement filed by the second defendant have been included in the typed set of papers. According to the plaint, there was one Subbu pillai, who was performing the poojas at the Sithi Vinayakar Temple and doing several charitable deeds. Somasundaram was the son of Subbu pillai and a trust was created called "Manickam Pillai Kumarar Subbu Pillai Muthammal Trust". On 7.10.1992 the suit property was purchased and on 27.11.1992 a trust deed was executed. After Somasundar