O R D E R

The petitioner in I.A.No.577 of 2013 in final decree application in I.A.No.506 of 2011, in O.S.No.286 of 2006 is on revision, challenging the order dismissing his application for impleading himself in the suit.

2.The suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of their 6/7th share in the suit schedule properties, claiming that they are the legal heirs of the first defendant Sankaran. The other defendants are the alienees from the Sankaran. One of the alienees was one Lakshmi Ammal, who had purchased a portion of the properties from the power agent of Sankaran on 17.04.2006. It is seen from the records that the power document was executed by Sankaran, the father of the plaintiffs on 10.10.2005 and the power agent sold the property to vendor of the petitioner on 17.04.2006. The vendor of the petitioner sold the property to the petitioner on 07.01.2008. It is also seen from the records that the vendor of the petitioner herself was impleaded as a party to the suit only on 31.01.2008, i.e after the sale by her in favour of the petitioner. However, the Preliminary Decree came to be passed on 24.01.2011. During the pendency of the final decree, the petitioner has come up with this instant application seeking impleadment and the same was resisted by the plaintiffs claiming that the petitioner being a lis pendens purchaser is not a necessary party. Unfortunately, the said plea was accepted by the trial Court and the application for impleadment was dismissed.

3.I have heard Mr. P.Alagesan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Balaji, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6/Plaintiffs and Mr.M.P.Senthil, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 11 & 12. The other respondents though served not appearing either in person or through counsel duly instructed. Considering the scope of this application, notice to the 9th respondent, who is also a subsequent purchaser is deemed unnecessary.

4.The trial Court had gone by the principle of law of Lis Pendens. But the said doctrine has no universal application. The Honourable Supreme Court in Dhanalakshmi and others Vs.P.Mohan and others, reported in (2007) 10 SCC Page 719, has held that Lis Pendens purchaser would be a necessary party in a suit for partition. Considering the scope of the suit and the fact that the rights of the parties could be finally worked out, only if all the purchasers are made parties, in order to atleast prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

5.In view of the said judgment, I do not think that the order of the trial Court could be sustained. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court is set aside. The petitioner is brought on record as the 11th defendant in the suit and 11th respondent in the final decree petition. No costs. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2006, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the final decree application, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

17.03.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vrn To TheI Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.

R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.

vrn Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2014(PD) and MP(MD) No.1 of 2014

17.03.2021