S SENGAMALAM Vs. IDOL OF ARULMIGHU RANGANATHASWAMI SRIRANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRD Party who filed an impleadment application as LA. No. 21 of 1999 in OS. No. 292 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, is the revision petitioner. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in that suit.

(2.) 7th defendant in the suit sold the property Plot No. 6 with buildings to the petitioner on 23-12-1991. It is the case of the petitioner herein that 7th defendant purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 4-7-1983 from its original owner S.R. Krishnasamy Iyangar (first defendant in the suit). After purchase, petitioner herein | has put up further constructions. It is her case that at the time when she purchased the property, she was not aware of the litigation. It is said that her vendors did not inform her about the alleged grant of patta in favour of plaintiff-Temple under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 She beings a bona fide purchaser for value without notice during the pendency of the suit, she should be impleaded in the suit.

(3.) THE case really turns on the true construction of the rule in particular the meaning of the words ?whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit: