A lis pendens transferee is not a necessary or proper party to a suit for declaration of title, but the court may, in its discretion, implead the transferee as a party under Order 22, Rule 10 (1) of the CPC.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter has come before this Full Bench to consider the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pranakrushna v. Umakanta Panda, AIR 1989 Orissa 148, laying down the rule that in a suit for declaration of title a transferee from the defendant pendente lite is neither a necessary nor a proper party and is not entitled to be impleaded inasmuch as he would be bound by the decree in the suit, having regard to the principles contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 2 ) THE motion of opposite parties 2 and 3, the purchasers pendente lite from opposite party No. 1 - defendant, having been allowed by the Munsif, Puri, in Original Suit No. 169 of 1982, the plaintiff has moved this Court for revision of the said order on the ground that a purchaser pendente lite having regard to the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is neither a necessary nor a proper party under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure nor is he entitled to be be impleaded under Order 22, Rule 10 (1 ). Hence, the exercise of discretion by the trial Court in allowing such purchaser to be impleaded as a party is in excess of jurisdiction and jurisdiction has been exercised illegally and with material irregularity.

( 3 ) THE petitioner instituted the suit for a decree for eviction of the defendant, recovery of possession and damages for illegal occupation. Opposite Party No. 1 denied the assertions of the petitioner and his title. By registered sale deed dated 27-2-84, a portion of the property involved in the suit was sold by opposite party No. 1 in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3 who filed an application on 1-10-1985 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as parties. Despite objection of the petitioner, by the impugned order the learned munsif allowed their prayer holding that though no doubt the transfer was hit by the rule of lis pendens, inasmuch as the defendant-opposite party No. 1 might not be interested after sale in properly conducting the suit and that might cause prejudice to the lis pendens purchasers, they should be arrayed as parties under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied upon a decision of this Court in Pranakrushna v. Umakanta Panda, AIR 1989 Orissa 148, where a Division Bench of this Court held :"under the provision of R. 10 (2) of Order 1, the Court may add the name of any person to the suit who ought to have been joined, either as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court is necessary. In my considered opinion, in a suit of this nature, a transferee from the defendant pendente lite is neither a necessary nor a proper party inasmuch as he would be bound by the decree in the suit in view of the principle contained in S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The intervenors could not have been added as parties to the suit in the beginning. In the circumstance can it be said that the presence of the intervenors was necessary to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit effectually and completely? The answer must be given in the negative. A person is not to be added as a defendant merely because he would be affected by the judgment. The main consideration is whether or not the presence of such person is necessary to enable the Court to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. I find a somewhat similar situation happening in a case before the Calcutta High Court in Narayan chandra Garai v. Matri Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. , AIR 1974 Cal 358. There also, a party sought to be added on the ground that the party to the suit who had been injuncted had agreed to sell the land to him. The Court held that he was neither a necessary nor a proper party as the question involved in the suit could be worked out without anyone else being brought on the record. Rule 10 cannot be read as r