CLEMENT AND ANR Vs. LILLY ROBERT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners sought impleadment of additional Defendants in O.S. No. 489 of 2004 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the Petitioners the additional Defendants sought to be impleaded are purchasers pendente lite of portions of the suit property from Defendants 1 and 2. Learned Sub Judge has declined to allow impleadment as per Ext.P5, oder dated March 16, 2011. In this petition filed on 05.08.2011 it is contended that the additional Defendants sought to be impleaded are either necessary or proper parties to the litigation.

(2.) As I understand from the submission of learned Counsel, Petitioners sued Respondents 1 to 5 for a declaration that the two sale deeds relied on by them to claim title over the suit property are null and void. It is contended that Respondents 6 to 8 are purchasers of different portions of the said properties from Respondents 1 and 2/Defendants 1 and 2. Now it is alleged that there is a further assignment by Respondents 1 and 2 during pendency of the suit to other persons (11 in number as the learned Counsel submits) tracing title to documents which are impugned as null and void.

(3.) Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would take care of Petitioners if at all they ultimately succeed in the suit as the additional Defendants sought to be impleaded as pendente lite purchasers. Case is posted for trial in the list on 08.08.2011. Suit is of the year 2004. I do not find reason to interfere,