ORDER :

While C.R.P.(MD)No.1688 of 2011 arose out of the petition for impleading in I.A.No.107 of 2010 filed in O.S.No.9 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, C.R.P. (MD)No.1140 of 2013 arose out of a petition in I.A.No.620 of 2010 in O.S.No.266 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif, Aruppukottai.

2. The suit in O.S.No.9 of 2009 was filed by three daughters of one Sivasubramaniya Muthaliyar, claiming that the suit properties numbering about 6 items belonged to the Sivasubramaniya Muthaliyar, as his ancestral properties and on his death on 04.01.2006, the plaintiffs being the daughters would be entitled to 1/6 share each as per the provisions of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1990. In the said suit, apart from adding their siblings as defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiffs also had impleaded defendants 4 to 11 who had purchased the properties from either Sivasubramaniya Muthaliar or the defendants 2 and 3 who are the sons.

3. The suit is being resisted by the petitioners herein who are defendants 4 and 5, contending that the properties purchased by them are the absolute properties of Sivasubramaniya Muthaliar and they have purchased the said properties vide sale deeds dated 03.05.2003. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek partition on the said properties.

4. While the case stood thus, the first respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.107 of 2010 claiming that he has purchased the suit second item under two sale deeds dated 17.04.2009 and 11.01.2010 from the plaintiffs. It is the further contention of the first respondent herein that the plaintiffs in the suit who were shown as respondents 2 to 4 in this revision petition, had suppressed the pendency of the suit and had sold the property for valuable consideration, as if it belongs absolutely to them. He would also claim that he is a bonafide purchaser.

5. This application was resisted by the petitioners herein contending that the first respondent being a lis pendens purchaser he is not entitled to be heard in the suit for partition. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party and in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the decision in the suit would binding on him and his purchase would be subject to the result of the litigation. Therefore, the petitioner in I.A.No.107 of 2010 namely the first respondent herein who is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the proceedings cannot seek impleadment as of right.

6. The Trial Court upon hearing the parties concluded that Section 52 of the Act does not invalidate a transfer of property that takes place pending the litigation. The effect of Section 52 of the Act, is only to make of alienations and transfers of immovable properties pending a litigation subject to the result of the litigation. To put it in otherwise, the effect of Section 52 of the Act is to make the judgement and decree in the suit binding on the pendente lite purchaser. The claim that the purchase was bonafide or not, is to be decided only at the time of trial. On the above conclusions, the learned Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur, allowed the application for impleading.

7. Aggrieved defendants 3,4 and 5 in O.S.No.9 of 2009 have come up with this Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.1688 of 2011. There is an another suit filed by the defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.266 of 2003 against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.9 of 2009 and the co-operative society seeking declaration of their title and permanent injunction on the strength of their purchase from Sivasubramaniya Muthaliyar. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.9 of 2009 sought impleading in the said suit and were impleaded as defendants 2 to 4.

8. Based on the very same sale deeds, dated 17.04.2009 and 11.01.2010, the first respondent in the said revision petition, sought impleading in I.A.No.620 of 2010. The said petition was also resisted by the petitioners herein who were the plaintiffs in the said suit, on the very same contention