25.In the judgment reported in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (5) CTC 354 (SC): AIR 2010 SC 3109: 2010 (7) SCC 417 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court defined the term 'proper party', as party, whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the Suit, though he need not be a person, in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. It is held that the fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the Suit is decided against the Plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a property party to the Suit for specific performance. Therefore, the transferee pendente lite secured right to work out equity in final decree proceeding and therefore, at the stage of passing preliminary decree, he is not a necessary party, as his interests are taken care of by his vendors. Therefore, the transferee pendente lite are necessary parties for complete, effective and adequate adjudication of the dispute while passing the final decree, as allotment of properties would be made only in the final decree. In such situation, it must be held that the Suit is liable to be dismissed for non impleadment of transferee pendente lite and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Dhanalakshmi and others v. P. Mohan and others, 2007 (3) CTC 332 (SC): 2007 (1) SCC 519, the transferee pendente lite are entitled to come on records in order to work out the equity in their favour in the Final Decree proceedings. In that reported case, the persons purchased undivided share of a co-sharers, prior to the filing of the Suit for partition and purchasers filed an Application to get themselves impleaded in the Suit for partition and in that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that by reason of the purchase by a third party of the undivided share in the suit property, the
