The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purchase of property during the pendency of a suit, without obtaining permission from the Court as required by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not automatically entitle the purchaser to be impleaded as a party to the suit.

1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.2003 passed in I.A. No. 170 of 2003 in O.S. No. 968 of 1984 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit, who has filed the suit for permanent injunction. The first respondent herein has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to implead himself and one Mariappan as defendants 6 and 7 in the suit. The same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred his civil revision petition.

3. Heard learned advocate for the revision petitioner and the respondents.

4. The first respondent herein who sought to implead himself as a defendant in the suit, has stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the lower Court that he had purchased 52 cents of land in the suit property from the first defendant on 2.12.1996 and the remaining 21 cents was purchased by one Mariappan under the sale deed dated 3.5.2001. He claims that the suit property originally belonged to one Muppudathi Thevar who had purchased the same under the sale deed dated 26.3.1909. Subsequently, the land was re-surveyed and after the death of Muppudathi Thevar, the first defendant and others, by means of registered partition deed dated 12.3.1984, divided the properties and the first defendant was allotted 18.1/4 cents of land and the remaining lands were allotted to Manisankar, Eswaramoorthy Thevar, Daniel Jaydoss and Ben Thomas, all are sons of Muppudathi Thevar and thus the entire extent of 73 cents was partitioned. The owners of the said extent of 73 cents of land have executed a power of attorney in favour of one Navaneethakrishnan on 23.7.1993 and on the strength of the said power of attorney, he had sold the property to the first respondent and to one Mariappan. He claims that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by him. He also stated that the said Navaneethakrishnan filed the suit in O.S. No. 128 of 2002 pending on the file of Sub-Court, Tirunelveli based upon a false agreement set up with the help of Chakkravarthy, in which the first respondent is also one of the defendants and the said Navaneethakrishnan as ninth defendant and the said suit is also pending. The first respondent also stated that he is contesting the said suit. It is also stated in the said suit about the pendency of this suit, namely O.S. No. 968 of 1984 and only thereafter, he came to know of this suit and therefore, he has filed this petition to implead himself and also one Mariappan as defendants 6 and 7 in the suit.

5. The revision petitioner/plaintiff resisted the said petition by filing counter, wherein he has stated that the first defendant in the suit had no right or title to the suit property and the sale deed in favour of the proposed parties is not valid and they are fraudulent transactions. He also denied the tile claimed through Muppudathi Thevar. The power of attorney in favour of Navaneethakrishnan is also questioned as a fraudulent document and it is stated that this document is created only to fabricate the documents. The plaintiff claims that he is in possession of the suit property and he is not a party to the suit in O.S. No. 128 of 2002 said to have been filed by Navaneethakrishnan. The plaintiff is also not aware of the person Chakkravarthy or the sale in favour of the third parties.

6. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the first respondent is a necessary party to the suit and allowed the petition. But however, his claim in respect of Mariappan to implead him also as a party to the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this civil revision petition.

7. Learned advocate for the revision petitioner would contend that the first respondent/proposed party is neither a necessary party nor proper party to the suit. The plaintiffs suit is for permanent injunction and it is for the p