The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, specifically the doctrine of lis pendens, in determining the rights of a subsequent purchaser during the pendency of a suit and the effect of such transfer on the final decree proceedings.

1. Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.8.2003 in A.S.No.41 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judges Court (Principal Subordinate Judge-Additional Charge), Gobichettipalaym, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 12.3.1999 in I.A.No.87 of 1987 in O.S.No.87 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the Second Appeal are:

Originally, the suit properties belong to Periya Apachi Gounder and Chinna Apachi Gounder and Periya Apachis wife is Marakkal; Periya Apachi died intestate and so, the said Marakkal as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.87 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, for partition of A and B schedule properties and preliminary decree of partition in respect of half share in both A and B schedule properties had been granted by the trial Court and in pursuance of the same, the said Marakkal filed I.A.No.87 of 1987 for passing a final decree; at that time, R7 Rangaswamy, who was the purchaser of B schedule property, during the pendency of the suit for partition in O.S.No.87 of 1987, from Chinna Appachi Gounder, was impleaded as party to the final decree proceedings, in which the trial Court granted half share in A and B schedule properties as per the Commissioners report/plan to the first respondent/second petitioner in I.A., against which, the subsequent purchaser, namely seventh respondent in the final decree proceedings, preferred a First Appeal, which was dismissed, against which, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the said R7/Rangaswamy.

3. At the time of admission of the present Second Appeal, this Court framed the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the absence of challenge to the preliminary decree passed by filing the appeal, would disable in law the purchaser pending suit, to work out his rights in equity in the final decree application?"

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/R7/subsequent purchaser, submitted that it is true that the suit properties belong to both Chinna Apachi Gounder and Periya Apachi Gounder. A preliminary decree for partition was passed. The appellant/R7 does not dispute the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.87 of 1987. Learned counsel for the appellant/R7 fairly conceded that during the pendency of the suit, the appellant/R7 purchased B schedule property and since the deceased first plaintiff-Marakkal died, R1 as adoptive daughter, impleaded herself as the second petitioner in the I.A. (final decree proceedings), and the appellant/R7, by stepping into the shoes of Chinna Apachi Gounder, purchased the properties from Chinna Apachi and after the death of the said Chinna Apachi Counter, her legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 2 to 6 in the I.A. filed for passing the final decree proceedings and they were set ex-parte and have not contested the final decree proceedings, and hence, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/R7/subsequent purchaser that the appellant is entitled to get the share of Chinna Apachi Gounder in the entire suit property instead of B schedule property and hence, he prayed for allowing the Second Appeal and wanted a decree in respect of the entire suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the various decisions of Supreme Court in support of his contentions.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/second petitioner (i.e. the legal heir of the deceased Chinna Apachi Gounder), submitted that the second plaintiffs mother, namely Marakkal, the deceased first plaintiff, filed the suit for partition and obtained preliminary decree in the suit for partition in respect of half share in A and B schedule properties and during the pendency of the suit, the appellant/R7 purchased the property under Ex.B-1 and before he purchased the property, he was a tenant under Chinna Apachi Gounder and Periya Apachi Gounder and thus, the appellant/R7/the sub