DHANALAKSHMI Vs. P MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the main revision itself is taken up. This revision is against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein, to implead themselves in the suit filed by the first respondent for partition of his share of the property in O.S.No.82 of 2004.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they have purchased the properties from the second, third, fourth and sixth respondents by two registered sale deeds dated 18.6.1999 and 21.6.1999 and they are the bona fide purchasers for the value and entitled for alienors" share in equity and therefore they are the necessary parties for effective adjudication of the dispute in O.S.No.82 of 2004. The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur came to the conclusion that since the sales in favour of the petitioners were covered by the doctrine of lis pendens and since they can only have whether rights of their transferors had, it is not necessary to deal with their rights separately and dismissed the application. Against that the present revision has been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there was no justification warranting interference in revision. THE learned counsel relied on the following judgments: 1. Amichand Aggarwal v. Nabi Hasan , 2003 AIR SCW 5858; 2. Raghavan v. M. Krishnammal , 1991 (1) LW 84; 3. G. Krishnamoorthy v. Sukumar & 4 others , 2003 (1) CTC 405 ; 4 . M. Ramanathan v. M. Vasantha and 8 Others , 2003 (4) LW 771; 5. Chinnammal and Others v. Kuppusamy, 2003 (4) CTC 794 : 2004 (3) MLJ 518; 6. Madras Law Reporter (Short Notes) 157.