Important Point
• Transferee pendente lite can be added as party to suit, where transfer effected, transferor would lose all his rights and interest in litigation post transfer.
• Section 52 of TPA, 1882 not render transfers affected during pendency of suit as void and mere pendency of suit does not prevent one of parties from dealing with property constitute in subject matter of suit.
• Doctrine of lis pendens not indeed annul conveyance or transfer otherwise, but makes it subservient to rights of parties to a litigation.

Satish K. Agnihotri and M.M. Sundresh, J.—Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P(PD) No.1337 of 2009 has been filed against the order dated 19..12.2008 passed in I.A.No.1241 of 2008 in O.S.No.254 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.

2. The learned Single Judge, in and by the order dated 12.1.2011, was pleased to refer the following issue to be decided by the Larger Bench as in his view, there are conflicting decisions over the same.

“Whether the transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in the suit”

3. In view of the said issue having been referred to the Division Bench, as a consequence, C.R.P.(PD) Nos.2062 of 2011, 1056 of 2011 and 1249 of 2011 were also directed to be posted alongwith C.R.P.(PD) No.1337 of 2009. Accordingly, all the four revisions are before us.

4. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have made submissions on merits. In all these revisions, challenge is to the orders passed in the interlocutory applications filed pending suits. The suits are pending for quite some time. Therefore, we do not propose to send back the revisions before the learned single Judge and instead we decide them on merits.

5. Brief Facts:

A suit was filed by one Gopinathan in O.S.No.254 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Chengalpattu seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents herein. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has purchased a suit property from the plaintiff and based upon the same, an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to implead him as the second plaintiff in the suit. In the application filed in I.A.No.1241 of 2008, the petitioner has contended that he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and after the purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by putting up compound wall and terraced house.

6. The learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, dismissed the application holding that the application filed cannot be allowed as the remedy open to the petitioner was to file a fresh suit instead of continuing the old one. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

7. CRP.(PD) No.2062 of 2011:- The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.11 of 2008. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the first respondent that a sale deed has been falsely created as if it was executed by the father on 16.06.1998 when he died as a matter of fact on 05.05.1972. The respondents as defendants are attempting to dispossess and hence the suit. Pending the suit, an application was filed in I.A.No.54 of 2011 in O.S.No.11 of 2008 by the petitioner herein on the ground that he purchased the suit property from the first defendant on 13.02.2009 by way of a registered sale deed. He was not aware of the pendency of the suit when the sale deed was effected and being the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration, he is entitled to be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit.

8. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur dismissed the application on the ground that inasmuch as the sale was made during the pendency of the suit, it is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the request cannot be considered.

9. C.R.P.(PD) No.1056 of 2011:- The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.13 of 1997, which is renumbered as O.S.No.51 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Vellore, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession as well as permanent injunction and for rendition of accounts. I.A.No.5 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners stating that the second defendant in the suit sold the item 2 of the ‘A” Schedule properties to them under the registered sale deed dated 24.12.2008 for good and valid consideration. Though the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers for the value, they do not have any notice of the pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiff and as such, th