property. The suit was filed on 09.04.2007. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners have purchased the suit property from defendants 1 and 2 who are respondents 2 and 3 in this revision petition. It is also admitted that the suit property was purchased on 09.07.2007 during the pendency of the suit which is about three months after filing of the suit. Though the revision petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.723 of 2012 nearly after five years from the date of filing of the suit, to implead them as parties, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the revision petitioners came to know about the suit only about a week before the application was filed and that they are necessary and proper parties for an effective and proper adjudication. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that the revision petitioners are only purchasers pendente lite and that the transfer in favour of the revision petitioners is hit by the principle of lis pendens . The trial Court relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2010 (2) CTC 636 ( R.J.Paul v. S.N.Kulasekaran and two others ) wherein it has been held that any transfer during the pendency of the suit in the teeth of Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882, is hit by the principle of lis pendens and that the purchaser pendente lite is not a proper and necessary party to the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in the said case. The trial Court also relied upon few other decisions which are mostly out of context. Merely because a transfer is hit by lis pendens, it cannot be understood that the transfer is void for all purposes. The object of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is based on the doctrine of expediency. This section does not annul the alienation pendente lite but makes the alienation subservient to the rights of parties to the litigation.
