The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading a party, especially a transferee pendente lite, in a partition suit to avoid multiplicity of suits and to effectively adjudicate upon all questions involved in the suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order of allowing of I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No. 21 of 2008 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur, dated 09.01.2023.)

1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 09.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2008 by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur.

2. According to the revision petitioner/plaintiff, he filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 2008 before the I Additional District and Sessions Court, (PCR), Thanjavur, for passing of a preliminary decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant allotting ½ share in the suit properties to the plaintiff by metes and bounds and also to pass a final decree in terms of preliminary decree. During the pendency of the said suit, the first respondent/third party filed a petition in I.A.No.109 of 2022 under Order 20 Rule 18 of C.P.C., praying for an order to allot the property in S.No.180/4B measuring 55 cents (Schedule 17) to him and to set aside the preliminary decree in which the above property was wrongly allotted to the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.NO.21 of 2008 and to implead him as a party in the preliminary proceedings. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 for passing of final decree, in which, the first respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.108 of 2022 and the said application was allowed by the trial Court by setting aside the preliminary decree. Against which, the present civil revision petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that originally the suit was filed seeking for partition claiming ½ share in the plaint schedule property. The suit properties were not devolved properly among the legal heirs of Maruthumuthu Pillai. The plaintiff being the cosharer of the said property and they declined to segregate his share, he filed the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2008. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed and the revision petitioner obtained an order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property to any third parties. Thereafter, the parties arrived at a compromise. On the basis of the compromise, final decree is yet to be passed. In these circumstances, the first respondent/third party without any legal basis, intervened the suit proceedings, by filing an application to implead himself as a party by claiming that he is a subsequent purchaser of the suit property. The learned counsel further submitted that when there is an order of injunction, the defendants have sold the property, more particularly, when the injunction was in force. Therefore the said alienation is not only invalid but also void and also subject to the result of the suit, on the principles of lis pendens. When the said unlawful alienation was executed by the defendants pending the suit proceedings, any alienation done by such defendants is not only subject to the result of the suit, but also hit by the principles of lis Pendens and hence, the first respondent/third party cannot maintain a separate cause action.

4. As per Section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act, the first respondent is needless to be heard and needless to be a party, more particularly, when the partition suit has arrived at a final decree proceedings. The implication of the 1st respondent/third party on collusion with the defendant, who violated the order of injunction, in order to drag on the proceedings, by barring the plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of the preliminary decree. Applying the principles of lis pendens, the question of implication of the first respondent/third party does not arise and the petition filed by the first respondent to implead himself in the final decree proceedings is unwarranted. However, the Court below has erroneously allowed the said petition, whi