JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- In this writ petition the petitioners are transferees during the pendency of the suit for petition under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by Bharat Singh opposite party no. 7 in the present writ petition. 2. The preliminary decree has been passed by the Board in the case. Thereafter the petitioners filed applications before the trial Court for determining their claims in the disputed property on the basis of sale deeds in their favour. All the revenue courts have rejected the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that their claims could not be recognised as they claimed modification of the preliminary decree. 3. It is note worthy that the transferee of a property during the pendency of a suit concerning it is bound by the ultimate decision in the suit. In the present case I have learnt that the applicants before the trial court were transferees in respect of Sirdari land allotted to Bhagirath. In that view of the matter their claim should have been proved by the revenue courts and if they were entitled to the plots or share purchased by them, they should be given appropriate reliefs. Their claim should not have been thrown out in the manner in which the revenue courts appear to have done in the present case. Even if the transferee applicants during the pendency of the suit approached the trial Court and when per preliminary decree the transferors had got some share or area in the disputed property, the claim of the applicants should have been investigated and equities between the transferors and the transferee should have been adjusted. In the present case I have a feeling that the revenue courts have wrongly observed that the claims of the applicants needed amendment of the preliminary decree, hence their claims were thrown out. 4. In a partition suit till the final decree is passed, the suit remains pending. The claim of the transferee during the pendency of the suit is subject to the ultimate decision in the suit. So the transferee before passing the preliminary decree is entitled to get the property purchased from a party if the property share has been declared as belonging to the transferor. Unless the trial examines this aspect of the matter it cannot throw out the prayer of the applicants for impleadment and objection to quras prepared by the Lekhpal. So the transferee before passing the preliminary decree is entitled to get the property purchased from a party if the property share has been declared as belonging to the transferor. Unless the trial examines this aspect of the matter it cannot throw out the prayer of the applicants for impleadment and objection to quras prepared by the Lekhpal. They have no manner of doubt that the transferee who has purchased a share or plotiaiter the passing of the preliminary decree has got a right to approach the trial court in proceedings for preparation of the final decree and his claim must be 1 Camined by the Court concerned at the time of passing the final decree. Since the revenue courts have failed to perform their duties in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners in the present writ petition and in refusing the prayer for their impleadment at the time of preparing the final decree, I think that they have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law. To my mind the judgments of the revenue courts deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, I intend to quash the judgments of the trial court the appellate court and the second appellate Court giving rise to the above noted writ petition. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 12-10-73 the judgment of the appellate court dated 3-1-1975 and that of the second appellate Court dated 6-10-1976 are hereby quashed and the trial court is directed to examine the claim of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law and the observations made by me above parties are directed to bear their own costs.