This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. According to the own admission of the petitioner, item No. 5 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by one Smt. Kantha under sale deed dated 03.05.1988. The said Smt. Kantha in turn sold the same to one Smt. Indiramma, who later sold the same to respondent No.13. The suit was filed in the year 2003. It is one for partition of the suit schedule property. The petitioner though had the knowledge of Smt. Indiramma having purchased item No.5 of the suit schedule property, she was not party-defendant to the suit. The present suit being one for partition of the suit schedule property, which is ancestral property, if one of the coparceners sells any part of thereof in favour of any third party, such third party will not accrue any absolute right in the property purchased, because any purchase made by him/her would be subject to partition of the ancestral properties. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision passed by the Court below refusing to implead respondent No.13 as party-defendant to the suit, and more so when the petitioner despite having knowledge that item No. 5 was sold much before filing of the suit schedule property, did not make the said purchasers as party-defendants to the suit.
