Mr. D. Krishnakumar, J.

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order dated 13.04.2005 made in I.A. No.78 of 2011 in O.S. No.13 of 2004, on the file of the District Court, Perambalur.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No.13 of 2004 before the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Principal District Court, Perambalur. According to the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, the suit properties is a joint family property and therefore filed a suit for partition and separate possession.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S. No.13 of 2004 praying for partition and separate possession declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to ?th share in 'A' schedule properties and 5/18th share in 'B' and 'C' schedule properties, then pass a final decree, by metes and bounds and direct the defendants to render accounts, for property before the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Principal District Court, Perambalur.

4. Pending the aforesaid suit, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A. No.78 of 2001 under Order 1, Rule 10 151 of CPC, to implead the respondents 9 and 10 in the suit. In the aforesaid application, it was contended that proposed parties/respondents 9 and 10 are none other than the daughters of respondents 1 and 2 in the above revision. The suit being one for the partition, respondents 9 and 10/proposed defendants, being daughters of the respondents 1 and 2, are necessary parties for the proper conduct of the suit. Since the respondents 9 and 10 got married before the advent of Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990, they have no share in the suit “B” and “C'” schedule properties, and they have not been made as parties in the suit.

5. Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 objected to implead respondents 9 and 10 as proposed defendants. In the above Application, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondents 9 and 10 are not necessary parties for adjudication of the suit for partition.

6. Mrs. A.L. Gandhimathi, learned counsel for the first respondent/1st defendant filed a counter affidavit assailing the allegations made in the affidavit. She submitted that the petitioners themselves have stated that the proposed parties have no share in the suit properties. Therefore, is no question of impleading them as additional defendants.

7. Mrs. A.L. Gandhimathi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has no objection in allowing the application at this stage for impleading the respondents 9 and 10, however without prejudice to their rights to adjudicate the matter at the time of trial against the respondents 9 and 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balvant Viswamitra and others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through his legal representatives reported in 2005 (3) L.W Page 20 observed as follows:

The law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the principles'. A necessary party is one without whom no order proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings.

8. Heard, Mr. R. Siddharth appearing on behalf of Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. A.L. Gandhimathi, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, Mr. P. Valliapan, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of Devaki Thiagarajan v. Ahamed reported in 2015(4) CTC 302, in paras 54, 62, 63, 71, 71-a, which reads as follows:

54. In so far as the present Appeal is concerned, we would like to place it on record that the Principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the T.P. Act being a Principle of Public Policy, no question of good faith or bona fide arises. The principle underlying Section 52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking Notice of a title acq