The main legal point established is that under the Specific Relief Act, a subsequent purchaser is a necessary party to obtain a binding decree in a suit for specific performance.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.7 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode, are the revision petitioners.

2. The suit was filed by the revision petitioners for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiffs and the respondents 1 and 2 on 16.07.2003 and for injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the third respondent was impleaded as third defendant and the suit was dismissed for default on 17.04.2008 and before the restoration of the suit, on 14.07.2008, the respondents 3 and 4 colluded and sold the property to the fourth respondent and therefore, the revision petitioners filed an application to implead the fourth respondent, who is the subsequent purchaser, as one of the defendants in that suit. That petition was dismissed by the Lower Court and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

3. Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that admittedly, the fourth respondent purchased the property, during the pendency of the suit and she purchased the property from the defendants and therefore, she is a necessary party to the proceedings and hence, she has to be impleaded as one of the parties, so as to get a binding decree against all persons having interest in the suit property. The learned counsel also relied upon Section 19 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act") and submitted that any other person claiming under parties to the suit by a title arising subsequently to the contract are bound by the decree and the specific performance of a contract may be enforced against them and therefore, the fourth respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in (2007 (4) L.W. 865) in the matter of ( Sumtibai & others Vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar, etc., & others), 2001 (3) C.T.C.

452 in the matter of (M.P.Kanoi and four others Vs. Mr. Palani Prop. M.P.Builders), 2010 (2) C.T.C.

275 in the matter of (H.Rahamathulla Vs. R.Murugaiyan and another) and 2009 (1) C.T.C. 775 in the matter of ( V.Ravimenon Vs. R.Ebinessar)

4. Mr.N.Manoharan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the fourth respondent is not a necessary party or proper party and she was not a party to the contract. Therefore, she cannot be impleaded as one of the parties to the proceedings. Moreover, the suit for specific performance cannot be converted into a suit for title and even assuming that the fourth respondent purchased the property, during the pendency of the suit, she is a pendente lite purchaser, who is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, she is bound by the decree and there is no necessity to implead her as one of the parties to the proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the fourth respondent purchased the property, when the suit was dismissed for default on 17.04.2008, and before the suit was restored, and therefore, the fourth respondent cannot be stated to be a pendente lite purchaser and the doctrine of lis pendens will not apply to her. Therefore, she is a third party and she is not bound by the decree. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in 1995 (3) S.C.C. 147 in the matter of (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishra), 2001 (4) C.T.C. 730 in the matter of (S.G.Kannappan Vs. S.Murugesan and another), and 2010 (3) C.T.C. 480 in the matter of (Krishnan Vs. P.Palanisamy and others).

5. To appreciate the contentions of both the parties, we will have to refer to Sections 15 and 19 of the said Act. As per Section 15 of the said Act, a specific performance of a contract may be obtained by "any party thereto" or " their representative in interest" or the member of "any party thereto". Section 19 of the said Act says that a specific performance of a contract may be enforced against--

a) either party thereto;

b) any other