1. By consent, the main revision itself is taken up. This revision is against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein, to implead themselves in the suit filed by the first respondent for partition of his share of the property in O.S.No.82 of 2004.

2. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the properties from the second, third, fourth and sixth respondents by two registered sale deeds dated 18.6.1999 and 21.6.1999 and they are the bona fide purchasers for the value and entitled for alienors’ share in equity and therefore they are the necessary parties for effective adjudication of the dispute in O.S.No.82 of 2004. The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur came to the conclusion that since the sales in favour of the petitioners were covered by the doctrine of lis pendens and since they can only have whether rights of their transferors had, it is not necessary to deal with their rights separately and dismissed the application. Against that the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the principles of plaintiff being the dominus litus would not be applicable to a partition suit, since each party in a partition suit is a plaintiff vis-a-vis the other parties. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no dispute regarding the shares and therefore there is no difficulty or hurdle in the way of impleading the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the suit, though presented in 1998 itself, was taken on file only in the year 2001 and numbered as O.S.No. l of 2001 whereas, the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners were of the year 1998-1999. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though it is true that the first respondent sent a telegram informing the petitioners of the pendency of the suit, the petitioners had purchased the properties prior to the said telegram and the respondent was duly informed of the same by their reply. The petitioners had made due enquiries regarding any prior encumbrance or alienation over the suit properties and had only thereafter bona fide purchased the property. According to the learned counsel, the trial Court had erred in dismissing the application.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would however submit that the petitioners are not bona fide purchasers for value. One G.Chandrasekar, brother of one of the petitioners had purchased the same property in the Court auction for a very low price and his application for taking delivery of the entire property was rejected by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, who set aside the Court auction sale on 21.6.99 on the ground that the Court auction sale itself is vitiated by fraud, and therefore the contention of the petitioners that they are the bona fide purchasers cannot be accepted. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that undoubtedly the purchases are hit by lis pendens and therefore Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act will apply in any event.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there was no justification warranting interference in revision. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments:

1. Amichand Aggarwal v. Nabi Hasan , 2003 AIR SCW 5858; 2. Raghavan v. M. Krishnammal , 1991 (1) LW 84; 3. G. Krishnamoorthy v. Sukumar & 4 others , 2003 (1) CTC 405 ; 4 . M. Ramanathan v. M. Vasantha and 8 Others , 2003 (4) LW 771; 5. Chinnammal and Others v. Kuppusamy, 2003 (4) CTC 794 : 2004 (3) MLJ 518; 6. Madras Law Reporter (Short Notes) 157.

6. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits transfer of property which is directly or specifically involved in a suit or proceedings, which is not collusive, in a manner that will affect the rights of any other parties, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as the Court may impose. The Explanation to this Section provides that pendency of the suit “sha