LILLY Vs. TAMIMUL ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.20 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Karaikkal are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE 1st respondent herein is the 3rd party to the suit. THE respondents 2 and 3 herein filed the above suit for partition and preliminary decree was passed on 7.6.2007. THE defendants 3 and 4/ revision petitioners herein filed I.A.No.159 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2000 for passing final decree and in that application the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.218 of 2011 to implead himself in the suit stating that he purchased the property from the defendants 1 and 2 who are not the parties to the revision. That application was allowed and as against the same, this revision is filed by the revision petitioners.

(3.) IT is seen from the Judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that this Court has held that when the properties are purchased during the pendency of the suit, the purchaser is neither a necessary nor a proper party and he is bound by the decree as the purchase is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. But the facts of this case are different. As stated supra, after the suit was dismissed on 21.8.2002 the properties were purchased from the defendants 1 and 2 by the 1st respondent herein on 11.4.2003 and on the date of purchase no suit was pending and therefore it cannot be contended that the 1st respondent has purchased the property during the pendency of the suit. The suit was restored only on 14.6.2006 and therefore the 1st respondent is entitled to himself as impleaded. Further in the Judgement reported in ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the petition by purchaser pendente lite in a suit for partition.