Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) claiming that he purchased the property on 28.08.2014 from the defendant No.7 in the suit, which was filed for ‘Partition’. The suit was filed in the year 2005. - The Trial Court ‘Dismissed’ the application vide I.A.No.119 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of 2005 on 03.07.2015, observing that any alienation made during the pendency of the suit is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the petitioner has no independent right in the suit property and further, his vendor is already on record and therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit.=The Trial Court ‘Dismissed’ the application vide I.A.No.119 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of 2005 on 03.07.2015, observing that any alienation made during the pendency of the suit is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the petitioner has no independent right in the suit property and further, his vendor is already on record and therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit. held that "It is evident that the doctrine as stated in Section 52, applies not merely to actual transfers of right which are subjectmatter of litigation but to other dealings with it "by any party to the suit or proceeding, so as to affect the right of any other party thereto".

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3585 OF 2015

Between:

1. K SUBRAMANYAM S/o. Venkata Ramana, Aged about 44 Years,

Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Door No. 2-356, Latchanna Street, Madanapalle

townm, Chittoor district.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. V. VIJAYAKUMARI & 14 OTHERS W/o. Late B. Rame Gowdu, Aged

about 73 Years,

Occ: House wife,

2. B.R. Bhavani, S/o. D. Ramesh, Aged about 45 years, R/o. D. No. 487/2,

46th Street, Manthope Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 83, Tamilnadu

State.

3. B.R. Kala Reni, W/o. M. Rajendran,

Aged about 44 Years, Occ: House wife,

4. B. Leelavathi, S/o. Rame Gowdu,

Aged about 43 Years,

5. B.R. Thilak Kumar, S/o. Rame Gowdu,

Aged about 41 years,

6. B.R. Amarnath, S/o. Late B.Rame Gowdu,

7. B.R. Sreevalli, D/o. Late B.Rame Gowdu

Respondents/Plaintiffs No. 4 to 7 are residing with theist respondent at

Door No. 11-16, Tapalaraju Street, Kuppam Town & Posts,

8. B.S. Mohan Reddy -

9. B.S.Dreenivasulu Gowdu, -

10. B.S.Krishna Gowdu @ Krishnamurthy, -

11. B.S.Jayakumar, -

12. B.S.Vijaya Bhaaskar Reddy, -

13. Anitha, Respondents No. 8 to 12 are the sons of Late B. Seshaiah Gowdu

and

13th Respondent is the daughter of B. Seshaiah Gowdu and wife of

Sankar Reddy.

All are land holders and residing at Baireddipalle Village and Mandal,

Chittoor District and 13th Respondent is residing at C/o. Shankar Reddy,

PC extension Takel Road, Opp: Agro Office, Kolar Town & District

14. B.Chinnabba, S/o. B.Gangaiah

R/o. D.No. 4-3-2A-7, Krishna Nagar, Madanapalle,

Chittoor District.

15. Smt. Sarojamma, W/o. M.Narayanaswamy

R/o. D.No. 10-63, Narayanaswamy Mudaliar Street,

Kuppam Town, Chittoor District.

(RR NO. 8 to 15 are not necessary Parties)

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

Counsel for the Respondents:

2023:APHC:9933

The Court made the following: ORDER 2023:APHC:9933

Page 1 of 8

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3585 OF 2015

Between:

K.Subramanyam, S/o. Venkata Ramana, 44 years, Cultivation,

R/o.Door No.2-356, Latchanna Street, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor

District.

… Petitioner/Petitioner/Proposed 9th Defendant

 Versus

1. V.Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Late B. Rame Gowdu, 73 years,

Housewife,

2. B.R.Bhavani, S/o. D.Ramesh, 45 years, R/o.Door

No.487/2, 46th Street, Manthope Colony, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai-83, Tamilnadu State.

3. B.R.Kala Reni, W/o. M.Rajendran, 44 years, Housewife.

4. B.R.Leelavathi, D/o. Rame Gowdu, 43 years.

5. B.R.Thilak Kumar, S/o. Rame Gowdu, 41 years.

6. B.R.Amarnath, S/o. Late B.Rame Gowdu, 41 years.

7. B.R.Sreevalli, D/o. Late B.Rame Gowdu, 39 years.

Respondents/Plaintiffs No.3 to 7 are residing with the 1st

respondent at Door No.11-16, Tapalaraju Street, Kupam

Town & Post.

8. B.S.Mohan Reddy, 59 years.

9. B.S.Sreenivasuly Gowdu, 57 years.

10. B.S.Krishna Gowdu @ Krishnamurthy, 55 years.

11. B.S.Jayakumar, 52 years.

12. B.S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, 47 years.

13. Anitha, 42 years.

Respondents No.8 to 12 are the sons of Late B.Seshaiah

Gowdu and 13th respondent is the daughter of B.Seshaiah

Gowdu and wife of Sankar Reddy.

2023:APHC:9933

Page 2 of 8

All are land holders and residing at Baireddipalle village and

Mandal, Chittoor District and 13th respondent is residing at

C/o. Shankar Reddy, PC extension Takel Road, Opposite

Agro Office, Kolar Town and District.

14. B.Chinnabba, S/o. B.Gangaiah, 83 years, R/w.D.No.4-3-2A7, Krishna Nagar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

15. Sarojamma, W/o. M.Narayanaswamy, 72 years,

R/o.D.No.10-63, Narayanaswamy Mudaliar Street,

Kuppam Town, Chittoor District.

(Respondents No.8 to 15 are necessary parties)

 ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs

* * * * *

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 15.03.2023.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

 may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

 marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

 fair copy of the Order? Yes/No

_____________________________

 B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

2023:APHC:9933

Page 3 of 8

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3585 OF 2015

% 15.03.2023

# Between:

K.Subramanyam, S/o. Venkata Ramana, 44 years, Cultivation,

R/o.Door No.2-356, Latchanna Street, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor

District.

… Petitioner/Petitioner/Proposed 9th Defendant

 Versus

1. V.Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Late B. Rame Gowdu, 73 years,

Housewife,

2. B.R.Bhavani, S/o. D.Ramesh, 45 years, R/o.Door

No.487/2, 46th Street, Manthope Colony, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai-83, Tamilnadu State.

3. B.R.Kala Reni, W/o. M.Rajendran, 44 years, Housewife.

4. B.R.Leelavathi, D/o. Rame Gowdu, 43 years.

5. B.R.Thilak Kumar, S/o. Rame Gowdu, 41 years.

6. B.R.Amarnath, S/o. Late B.Rame Gowdu, 41 years.

7. B.R.Sreevalli, D/o. Late B.Rame Gowdu, 39 years.

Respondents/Plaintiffs No.3 to 7 are residing with the 1st

respondent at Door No.11-16, Tapalaraju Street, Kupam

Town & Post.

8. B.S.Mohan Reddy, 59 years.

9. B.S.Sreenivasuly Gowdu, 57 years.

10. B.S.Krishna Gowdu @ Krishnamurthy, 55 years.

11. B.S.Jayakumar, 52 years.

12. B.S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, 47 years.

13. Anitha, 42 years.

2023:APHC:9933

Page 4 of 8

Respondents No.8 to 12 are the sons of Late B.Seshaiah Gowdu

and 13th respondent is the daughter of B.Seshaiah Gowdu and

wife of Sankar Reddy.

All are land holders and residing at Baireddipalle village and

Mandal, Chittoor District and 13th respondent is residing at

C/o.Shankar Reddy, PC extension Takel Road, Opposite Agro

Office, Kolar Town and District.

14. B.Chinnabba, S/o. B.Gangaiah, 83 years, R/w.D.No.4-

3-2A-7, Krishna Nagar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

15. Sarojamma, W/o. M.Narayanaswamy, 72 years,

R/o.D.No.10-63, Narayanaswamy Mudaliar Street,

Kuppam Town, Chittoor District.

(Respondents No.8 to 15 are necessary parties)

 ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs

! Counsel for the Revision-petitioner/

Proposed 9th Defendant

:: Sri Suresh Kumar

Reddy Kalava

^ Counsel for the Respondents :: No Vakalat filed on

behalf of respondents

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1957 Pat 729 (731).

2. AIR 1972 Goa 42 (43).

3. AIR 1973 SC 569 (581).

This Court made the following:

2023:APHC:9933

Page 5 of 8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3585 OF 2015

O R D E R:

Heard both counsels.

2. This revision-petition is filed by the unsuccessful third-party,

who filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) claiming that he purchased the

property on 28.08.2014 from the defendant No.7 in the suit, which

was filed for ‘Partition’. The suit was filed in the year 2005.

3. The Trial Court ‘Dismissed’ the application vide I.A.No.119 of

2015 in O.S.No.8 of 2005 on 03.07.2015, observing that any alienation

made during the pendency of the suit is hit by Section 52 of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the petitioner has no

independent right in the suit property and further, his vendor is

already on record and therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party

to the suit.

3. The point that arises for consideration is:-

“Whether the Trial Court committed any

irregularity in the Order, dated 03.07.2015 passed in

I.A.No.119 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of 2005?

2023:APHC:9933

Page 6 of 8

4. P O I N T:-

The facts and circumstances would establish that the revisionpetitioner purchased the property covered by the suit filed for

‘Partition’ from one of the defendants in the suit on 28.08.2014,

pending the suit. The effect of the doctrine of lis pendens as embodied

in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not to annul the

transfer, but only to render it subservient to the rights of the parties

thereto under the decree or order which may be made in that suit. The

fact of said doctrine is to make the decree passed in the suit binding

on the transferee if, they happened to be third-party even if they are

not parties to the suit.

5. In T. Bhup Narain Singh v. Nazvab Singh1, the Hon’ble Apex

court held as under:

“The words "so as to affect the rights of any other party

thereto under any decree or order which may be made

therein" make it quite clear that the transfer is good except to

the extent that it might conflict with rights decreed under the

decree or order.”

6. In Prabhakar v. Antonia2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as

under:

1 AIR 1957 Pat 729 (731).

2023:APHC:9933

Page 7 of 8

“A transfer or a dealing by a party to a suit during the

pendency of the suit or proceeding is not, ipso facto void. It

only cannot affect the rights of any other party to the suit

under any decree or order that may be made in the suit or

proceeding.”

7. While considering the true import and scope of Section 52 of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaynram

Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami3, observed:

"It is evident that the doctrine as stated in Section 52, applies

not merely to actual transfers of right which are subjectmatter of litigation but to other dealings with it "by any party

to the suit or proceeding, so as to affect the right of any other

party thereto".

8. It may be stated that the rule/principle enacted in this section is

in a sense an extension of the rule of res judicata and makes the

adjudication in the suit binding on alienees from parties during the

pendency of the suit, just as much as the doctrine of res judicata

makes the adjudicating binding, not only on the parties themselves

but also on alienees from them after the decree. It affects a purchaser

2 AIR 1971 Goa 42 (43).

3 AIR 1973 SC 569 (581).

2023:APHC:9933

Page 8 of 8

pendente lite, not because it amounts to notice, but because the law

does not allow a litigant party to give to others, pending the litigation

rights, to the property in dispute, to prejudice the opposite party.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the

revision-petitioner was examined as a witness in the suit during the

trial.

10. Considering the above facts and law, there are no grounds to

interfere with the Order of the Trial Court as there is no material

irregularity was committed by the Trial Court while dismissing the

application filed by the revision-petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In that view of the matter, the revisionpetition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is ‘Dismissed’. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________________

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

15th March, 2023.

DNB

2023:APHC:9933