Purchaser of the property in disputes can be added as party in appeal.

This appeal challenges the validity of the order of the District Judge permitting the first respondent to come on record as a party to the appeal pending before him in A.S.No.324 of 1949. The first respondent purchased the property in dispute which is a house situated in Chingleput town from one of the parties to the suit on 12th October, 1949, between the date of the decree in favour of the third respondent and the filing of the appeal to the District Judge by the aggrieved party. While the appeal was pending in the District Court, the parties entered into a compromise and in consequence thereof, a compromise memo. was filed on 4th January, 1950, which was recorded on the same day. But a decree in terms thereof was not passed immediately for some reason which is not necessary to mention here.

The next day, the first respondent coming to know of this, filed a petition under Order 22, rule 10 for being impleaded as a party to that appeal so that he could attack the genuineness of the compromise. This was opposed by the appellant and the other respondents in the Court below on the ground that he was not entitled to come on record as a party to the appeal and his remedy if any was by way of a suit to set aside the decree on grounds of fraud and collusion. The assignor even disputed the genuineness of the assignment. But I am not now concerned with that matter at this stage. The trial Court overruling the objection raised both by the appellant and the third respondent, directed the alienee, the first respondent to be impleaded as a party to that appeal.

In this appeal against that order it is maintained by Mr. Krishnamurthy on behalf of the appellant, that the view taken by the Court below that the purchaser pendente lite could be brought on record as a party respondent and that the Court could enquire into the genuineness and the validity of the assignment is erroneous. The same objections which were raised by him in the Court below are repeated here. In support of this appeal he has cited to me certain decisions which I will refer to immediately.

In Laraiti v. Shamsunderlal1, it was laid down that an application under Order 22, rule 10 by a person who has purchased the suit property from one of the parties pendente lite to come on record on the ground that a compromise that was entered into between the parties on record would affect his interests should be rejected. The petition under Order 22, rule 10 was filed after the compromise was recorded but before a decree was passed on the basis of the compromise. It was observed by the learned Judges that so long as the matter adjusted between the parties was by a lawful compromise a decree had to be passed in accordance with that compromise.

In Setupathi v. Secretary of State2, a suit was filed by the Rajah of Ramnad against the Union Board for a declaration that certain streets round his palace belonged to him and did not vest in the Union Board. The suit was being contested by the Union Board and eventually the parties entered into a compromise whereby the right of the Rajah to suit property was recognised subject to certain conditions and a memo. of compromise was filed in pursuance thereof and recorded. But before a decree was given in terms of the compromise, the Secretary of State made an application to be impleaded as a party to the suit and this application was allowed by the District Munsiff. In revision, against that order, the order of the District Munsiff was set aside by this Court on the ground that the Court was bound under Order 23, rule 3 to give a decree in terms of the compromise if it was a lawful one and the Court could not direct a party to be added if the original parties by the compromise had terminated the proceedings in that suit. At page 342 of the report Kumaraswami Sastri, J., who disposed of the petition, observed that the fact that the petitioner who claims a right or interest in the matter cannot, if the suit was terminated lawfully by the origin