A subsequent purchaser in a suit for permanent injunction is entitled to be impleaded as a party for effective adjudication, as established in V.Ravimenon and Savitri Devi cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 17.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.793 of 2011 in O.S.No.87 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Villupuram.)

1. Aggrieved over the order dated 17.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.793 of 2011 in O.S.No.87 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Villupuram, the petitioner who is the third party to the suit filed this Civil Revision Petition and prayed to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.793 of 2011.

2. Before the trial court, the first respondent Ramasamy in this Civil Revision Petition filed a suit as against the second and third respondents in O.S.No.87 of 2009 and seeks the relief of permanent injunction restraining the second and third respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. During the pendency of the suit, on 27.08.2009, the petitioner herein purchased the suit property from the first respondent. Thereafter he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as second plaintiff in the said suit. The learned II Additional District Munsif, Villupuram after hearing the objection raised by the second respondent in this Civil Revision Petition by order dated 17.08.2011 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. In the impugned order, the learned II Additional District Munsif, Villupuram observed as since the right vested with the first respondent is transferred in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is attracted and thereby the petitioner cannot become a necessary and property party to the suit and therefore it is not necessary to implead the revision petitioner as second plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that since the right of the suit property is transferred in the name of the petitioner, for better adjudication impleading the petitioner as second plaintiff is very much necessary. It is usual if a person who is having the right over the property sold the same in favour of any other person, he losses the interest in the proceeding initiated. So, for better adjudication impleading the petitioner is very much necessary.

4. In respect to the respondents 1 to 3, either the respondents or his counsel has not appeared before this Court. Hence, the arguments of the respondents is suo moto closed.

5. Now appreciating the averments set out in the plaint filed by the first respondent, he has averred that before filing the suit for permanent injunction, he has filed a suit in O.S.No.187 of 1997 as against the second respondent and against his father for the relief of partition. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court and in the appeal preliminary decree has been passed in favour of the first respondent. The said dispute went upto this Court in S.A.No.2030 of 2004 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 26.11.2004 after confirming the preliminary decree passed in favour of the first respondent. In the execution proceedings, partition was effected and on 31.05.2008, the suit property was handed over to the first respondent. In respect to the same, the defendant filed written statement stating that delivery is only paper delivery. Further final decree has been passed apart from their knowledge. So in the written statement filed by the second and third respondents, he has admitted that delivery was effected in favour of the first respondent. Further as of now, the said final decree has not been set aside. Only in the said occasion, alleging that the respondents 2 and 3 attempted to interfere with his possession, the first respondent herein filed the suit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased the suit property du