V RAMA RAO Vs. T RAGHUNATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent filed o. S. No. 208 of 2005 in the Court of junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, against the petitioner, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. When the suit was pending, the 2nd respondent is said to have transferred the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st respondent, through the sale deed, dated 20. 12. 2005. In view of this development, the 1st respondent filed la. No. 693 of 2006 under Rule 10 (2) of order I C. P. C. , to add him as 2nd plaintiff in the suit. The application was opposed by the petitioner, on several grounds. Through its order, dated 1. 12. 2006, the trial Court allowed the I. A. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(2.) SMT. Anjana Devi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing was placed before the trial Court, to substantiate the transfer of the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st respondent. According to her, the 2nd respondent is prohibited under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the Act') from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit. It is also her case that a pendente lite transferee does not have a right to get himself impleaded in a suit and places reliance upon a judgment of this court in Chappidi Subbareddy (died) v. Chappidi Narapureddy, 2006 (3) ALD 516 = 2006 (2) ALT 490 (DB ).

(3.) SRI G. Rama Gopal, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the transfer is between respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner had absolutely nothing to do with the same. He contends that by virtue of the purchase, the 1st respondent steps into the shoes of the 2nd respondent and it hardly makes any difference for the petitioner. He further submits that being a purchaser of the suit schedule property, the 1st respondent is a necessary party to the suit.