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 a