JUDGMENT:- The petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No.65 of 1985 against respondent nos. 1 to 11 seeking a declaration of his title and ownership over certain suit property, on the ground that he had purchased the suit property in the name of one Narayan, through whom respondent nos.1 to 11 claimed title over the suit property. According to petitioner, Narayan was only a "Benamidar" and the petitioner himself is the real owner of that property. 2. During pendency of the suit, defendant nos.12 and 13 claimed to have purchased the property from other defendants. They, therefore, made an application [Exh.262] before Trial Court to implead themselves as defendants, as the title to the property has been transferred to them by other defendants. That application was allowed by the Trial Court as per the impugned order dated 9th December, 2003. That order is challenged in the present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. On perusal of the record and in view of the facts noted above, it is clear that the plaintiff has tiled the suit for declaration of his title and ownership, and naturally he has to prove that title to get the declaration. If he succeeds in proving his title, the sale by other defendants, having no title over the property, to defendant nos.12 and 13 cannot confer any title on the purchasers. However, if the plaintiff fails to prove his title over the property, the purchasers may claim title over the property on the basis of sale in their favour by other defendants. 5. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that during the pendency of the suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto. Naturally, the principles of lis pendens will be applicable to the transaction between defendant nos.12 and 13 on one hand and other defendants on the other hand, and the said transaction cannot affect the right and title, if any, of the plaintiff 6. Naturally, the principles of lis pendens will be applicable to the transaction between defendant nos.12 and 13 on one hand and other defendants on the other hand, and the said transaction cannot affect the right and title, if any, of the plaintiff 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a temporary injunction operating against respondent nos.1 to 11 against alienation of property to any third party, pending the suit and the sale transaction is in violation of the said injunction and, therefore, the respondent nos.12 and 13 are not necessary parties, and need not be impleaded. In support of this, he placed reliance upon a reported judgment of this Court in case of Keshrimal Jivji Shah & another Vs. Bank of Maharashtra & ors. [2004(3) Mh. L.J. 893]. That was a matter between the Financial Institution, i.e., the Bank of Maharashtra and its debtor, and in violation of the temporary injunction, the property was sold. In the said case, it was held by this Court that the transfer of immovable property in violation of order of injunction or prohibition is no transfer and it confers no right, title or interest on the transferee. In fact, that very principle is specifically incorporated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act itself. 7. In Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb & another [ AIR 2004 SC 173 ), there were two cross suits filed, one for redemption of mortgage and another for specific performance of contract and the suits were pending for a long time. Therein, a third party, who claimed to have purchased the property pending the suits without leave of the Court, sought to be impleaded as a defendant. That application was rejected. The Supreme court held that the rejection is proper. In that matter, it appears that the parties were actually contesting two suits and the alienation in favour of the transferee was not found to be bona fide and, therefore, the application was rejected. 8. In the present case, the petitioner claims title over the property on the ground that he is the real owner and deceased Narayan was a Benamidar, Naturally, the petitioner will succeed or fail on the basis of evidence which he may lead, and subject to the provisions of Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, if it is applicable to the said transaction. 9. 9. During pendency of the suit, as the defendants have transferred the property to defendant nos.12 and 13, the original defendants may not have any interest in the litigation and there is a possibility that they may not contest the suit properly and, therefore, it will be necessary to implead the respondent nos. 12 and 13, so that they may see that the suit is properly contested. It does not mean that the defendant nos.12 and 13 can succeed merely because they have purchased the property pending the suit without knowledge of rights of the petitioner or without the knowledge of the litigation or that they are the bona tide purchasers. None of these pleas can be available to a transferee, pending litigation, in view of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 10. Learned Counsel for respondent nos.12 and 13 relied on Amit Kumar Shaw & another Vs. Farida Khatoon & another [ AIR 2005 SC 2209 ], wherein, after referring to the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, and Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court observed in Para 16 thereof as follows:- "16. The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a Court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the Court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant, the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party; under Order 22, Rule 10 an alinee pendente lite may be joined as party. As already noticed, the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. As already noticed, the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. The Court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case." 11. In my considered opinion, the present case is squarely covered by the above observations of Supreme Court and, therefore, it was necessary to grant permission to respondent nos.12 and 13 to be impleaded, so that the petitioner may not obtain a decree by collusion with other defendants. Thus, I do not find any fault with the impugned order. 12. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.