ORDER 1. By this second appeal under section 100 CPC the appellants challenge the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below inter-alia on the grounds that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1 had sold the property and, therefore, he had no existing right to continue with the suit and the sale deed was in fact security for loan, was sham and bogus and was not to be acted upon. 2. The appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: 1) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondel1t lost his right to continue with the suit having sold the property in favour of the third party during the pendency of this suit"? 2) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale deed was a security for loan only, was sham and bogus and was not to be acted upon"? With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. 3. The plaintiff/respondent No. I filed the suit against the present appellants inter-alia pleading that the suit property was purchased by him from the appellant No.2 on 11.4.85 for consideration of Rs. 7,000/- and after some time i.e. 15.4.85 the property was given back to the appellant No.1 for cultivation as a servant. It was contended by the defendants that the defendants never sold the property but in fact it was loan transaction and the plaintiff obtained a sale deed in lieu of security for the loan. It was also contended by them that the possession of the property was never delivered to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1 sold the property to Leeladhar and Purushottam both sons of Ramratan on 22.11.1982. He wanted to amend the pleadings by adding para 9A and para 9B in the plaint. He also wanted to join the said transferees as defendant No.3 and defendant No.4. In the said application he also submitted that if Leeladhar and Purushottam want to join as plaintiffs, the plaintiff would not have any objection. The application dated 11.1.1984 was contested by the defendants. It was contended by them that the amendment was mala fide and as the plaintiff has already transferred his right title and interest in favour of Leeladhar and Purushottam, he cannot continue with the suit. Notice of the application was issued to the transferees. The application dated 11.1.1984 was contested by the defendants. It was contended by them that the amendment was mala fide and as the plaintiff has already transferred his right title and interest in favour of Leeladhar and Purushottam, he cannot continue with the suit. Notice of the application was issued to the transferees. The transferees in their objections contended that the said transferees have already filed a suit for possession or in the alternative for refund of consideration, therefore, their impleadment as party is not necessary. 4. After hearing the parties, learned Court below by its order dated 19.2.1985 held that the application was worth rejection. the transferees cannot be joined as parties and as the issue No.5 was in relation to the same transaction/transfer the amendment cannot be permitted. Accordingly the transferees were not permitted to join. The effect of the order was that the transferees did not become parties to the suit and the fact remained that they had already taken legal recourse in relation to their rights by filing some other civil suit. The order dated 19.2.1985 remained unchallenged and the trial proceeded. 5. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial Court by its judgment dated 26.2.1992 held that the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit had transferred the property in dispute in favour of Leeladhar and Purushottam, but by the transfer, his right to continue with the suit would not come to an end. Placing reliance upon the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, the learned trial Court observed that the original plaintiff would continue with the suit. The unsuccessful defendant took up the matter in appeal. Before the Appellate Court also question regarding maintainability was raised. The Appellate Court agreeing with the findings regarding the transfer, endorsed the conclusion of the learned trial Court that in view of the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, the plaintiff was entitled to continue with the suit. 6. Order 22, Rule 10 CPC reads as under: (1) "In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. 6. Order 22, Rule 10 CPC reads as under: (1) "In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. (2) "The attachment of a decree pending an appeal there from shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1)" . From the perusal of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC it is clear that in case of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. Rule 10 CPC considers two situations. It clearly states that a person in whose favour the rights have devolved may continue with the suit or the suit may be continued against the person in whose favour the rights have devolved. The two Courts have not appreciated the legal provisions in their true perspective. Rule 10 or Order 22 does nowhere say that even after culmination or termination of the plaintiff s right in the property he can continue with the suit for and on behalf of third party who has refused to join as a party in the suit. Rule 10 is a rule of equity. It says that if somebody steps in the shoes of the plaintiff, he may continue with the suit, in another situation if somebody steps in the shoes of the defendant by purchasing the property or getting certain rights in his favour, then the plaintiff may continue his suit against such a party. The equirty right goes with Sec. 52 of Transfer of Property Act to show that if party commits breach of the statutory injunction then the other party would not be permitted to suffer. If the defendant during the pendency of the suit trsansfers his right, then the plaintiff with the permission of the Court may continue his suit against such person upon whom the rights have devolved. If the defendant during the pendency of the suit trsansfers his right, then the plaintiff with the permission of the Court may continue his suit against such person upon whom the rights have devolved. A person feeling that after transfer of the property the plaintiff may not look after his property or may not look after his interest properly, may seek permission of the Court to join as co-plaintiff and may continue with the suit against the defendant. Rule 10 CPC would not clothe the plaintiff with any right to continue with the suit when on his own showing he has no existing right title or interest in the property. Having alienated his right, title and the interest in the property he cannot sue any person or a third party. The moment he transfers his right and title, it is such transferee who is entitled to sue such defendant for such reliefs which he deems proper. In the instant case, the persons were noticed and were given an option to join as co-plaintiff but despite being aware of their rights, they refused to join as co-plaintiffs and informed the Court that they have taken care of their own rights by filing a separate suit. If such transferees have already instituted a suit for the reliefs based on the rights appreciated by them, then the plaintiff cannot be permitted to continue with the suit only on the ground that under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, he has a right to continue with the suit. The two Courts below have not appreciated the legal provisions properly. As the plaintiff had list his right title and interest in the property he was not entitled to contmue with the suit. The Court below was not justified in holding that in view of provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, the plaintiff could continue with the suit and was entitled to a decree. The error is apparent on the face of the record. After the property was transferred in favour of third party, the plaintiff lost his right to continue with the suit. The suit ought to have been dismissed by the Courts below. 5. In view of the findings recorded on the question No.1 above on the maintainability of the suit, it is not necessary for this Court to consider the merits of the matter. The suit ought to have been dismissed by the Courts below. 5. In view of the findings recorded on the question No.1 above on the maintainability of the suit, it is not necessary for this Court to consider the merits of the matter. The findings recorded by the two Courts below on the merits are set aside. Any findings recorded in the suit by the Courts below stands set aside as it was recorded in a suit which was not maintainable. 6. The appeal is allowed. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. A decree be framed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.