Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, a transferee pending litigation may not be a necessary party and is bound by the decree to be passed in the pending litigation.

1. The Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has projected the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 13.11.2009 in I.A. No.877 of 2009 in O.S. No.118 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore.

2. The learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, while passing order in I.A. No.877 of 2009 in O.S. No.118 of 2009 on 13.11.2009 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff) has inter alia observed that. 'it is settled law that the subsequent purchaser need not be impleaded in the pending proceedings and that the subsequent transaction is invalid under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act' and resultantly dismissed the Application without costs.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that impleading the purchaser will avoid multiplicity or proceedings and also shorten the litigation.

4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff that the agreement of sale is an ante-dated one and the purchaser claims right under the same.

5. Finally, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff that it is not always necessary to say that a purchaser in a pending lis is an unnecessary party.

6. In response, the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Defendant submits that the 1st Respondent/Defendant is not aware of the revocation of the Power Deed dated 12.12.2009, through registered Revocation Deed dated 20.3.2009 and that the 1st Respondent/Defendant entered into an Agreement of Sale with the proposed party viz., Raja, son of Jayaraman and received advance of Rs.50,000/-and agreed to receive the balance in six months time and executed Sale Deed and that the revocation is long after the 1st Respondent/Defendant has acted upon the Power Deed.

7. The Petitioner/Plaintiff in I.A. No.877 of 2009 has averred that she filed a Suit for permanent injunction against the 1st Respondent/Defendant, who was her Power of Attorney Agent and that she cancelled the said Power Deed and the alleged Sale Agreement dated 3.3.2009 made by the 1st Respondent/Defendant with the proposed party for Rs.1,50,000/- is ante dated, collusive and fraudulent one and later on 28.4.2009, the Sale Deed has been deliberately executed pending Suit and the purchase made by the proposed party, during the pendency of O.S. No.118 of 2009 is an invalid one.

8. In the counter, the 1st Respondent/Defendant has Categorically averred that the property has been said after the Suit and further that the possession has been delivered. Further it is the stand of 1st Respondent/Defendant that the main Suit O.S. No.118 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff against the 1st Respondent/ Defendant is only for permanent injunction and no right to immovable property is directly and specifically involve in the Suit and nowhere in Plaint, it is averred that the proposed party (2nd Respondent) is attempting to enter upon the suit property.

9. It is to be noted that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with ‘transfer of property pending Suit relating thereto’. In fact, the said Section indicates the principle of ‘lis pendens’ known as ‘ut lite pendente nihil innovertur’. Indeed, the ingredient of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act created a right to be enforced, with a view to avoid a transfer made during the pendency of litigation, because of the reason that such a transfer is not void, but voidable is at the option of the aggrieved person to the pending proceedings (where the transfer is erected), a Suit normally begins by filing of the Plaint.

10. It is to be borne in mind that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act contemplates the fetter on the transfer of immovable property right to which is directly and substantially in question in a pending litigation. Ordinarily if the property is acquired pendente lite, the acquirer is certainly to abide by the decree finally to be passed