(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram made in I.A.No.18 of 2011 in A.S.No.13 of 2010 and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.11.2019.)1. The Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.18 of 2011 in A.S.No.13 of 2010, dated 20.11.2019, on the file of the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram, allowing the impleading petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.2. The revision petitioners are the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents 2 to 9 / plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2006 for evicting the revision petitioners and for mandatory injunction for removal of the machineries in the suit property. The revision petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2007 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession except under due process of law.3. Admittedly, the revision petitioners are the tenants and the respondents 2 to 9 are the landlords. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, after conducting joint trial in O.S.No.2 of 2006 and O.S.No.50 of 2007, has passed a common judgment decreeing the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2006, directing the revision petitioners to vacate the suit property and hand over the vacant possession of the same within three months and dismissed the suit with respect to permanent injunction and granted damages to the tune of Rs.62,000/- to the revision petitioners in O.S.No.50 of 2007.4. The revision petitioners, aggrieved by the common judgment and decrees passed by the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, have preferred appeals in A.S.No.6 of 2010 and A.S.No.13 of 2010 and the same are pending on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Ramanathapuram. Pending appeal suit in A.S.No.13 of 2010, a third party claiming to be the subsequent purchaser has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as 10th respondent in the appeal and that the learned Appellate Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 permitting the impleadment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have come forward with the present revision.5. The case of the proposed party is that he has purchased the property on 31.12.2010, that he is a bona fide purchaser, that the appellants are prosecuting the appeals challenging the judgment passed in O.S.No.2 of 2006, whereunder they were directed to vacate the suit property and hand over the possession of the same and that since the proposed party has purchased the property, he is a necessary party and that therefore, he has to be impleaded as 10th respondent in the appeal.6. The defence of the revision petitioners is that the proposed party is not a lawful owner, as he purchased the lease hold land while the appeals are pending, that the proposed party's sale is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the proposed party is not a proper or necessary party to the appeal and that therefore, the proposed party is not entitled to get the relief claimed. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioners are only the tenants and that they have already been directed to vacate the suit property and hand over the possession of the same to the landlords/the respondents 2 to 9. Challenging the said judgment, the appeal filed by the revision petitioners is pending before the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram.7. It is not in dispute that the proposed party has purchased the suit property on 31.12.2010 from the respondents 2 to 9. The only contention raised by the revision petitioners is that the sale of the proposed party is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Section 52 of the said Act creates only a right to be enforced to avoid a transfer made pendent lite because such transfers are not void but voidable and that too at the option of the affected party to the proceeding, pending which the transfer is affected.8. It is pertinent to note that any transfer during the pendency of the litigation is not void and it is only subject to the out come of the litigation and hence, the transfer is voidable. To put it in other way, the transferee only takes the title of transferor subject to the result of the pending litigation and as such, mere pendency of the suit does not prevent any of the parties from dealing with the property i.e., the subject matter of the suit.9. As already pointed out, in the case on hand, there is no title dispute between the parties to the lis and the revision petitioners are only the tenants and they were contesting the ejectment suit and now they are prosecuting the appeal, challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said suit. The learned Appellate Judge, relying the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2013 2 CTC 104 SC [Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders & Investers P.Ltd & other], has rightly held th
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
at the proposed party is a necessary party and is to be impleaded to protect his interest. Except the above, the revision petitioners have not raised any other valid or serious objection for impleadment. Hence, the decision of the trial Court in allowing the impleading petition cannot be found fault with and consequently, this Court concludes that the revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable dismissed.10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.