Judgment : 1. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff herein, has come forward with the above revision challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.104 of 2011 in O.S.No.39 of 2010 dated 3.2.2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the 1/3 share in A and B schedule properties. The defendants are contesting the suit. During the pendency of the suit, defendants 2, 4 and 5 sold their share to the proposed party, the eighth respondent herein, in respect of item No.5 of the suit schedule property. Hence, the petitioner was forced to file the I.A. for impleading the eighth respondent as a party to the proceeding. 4. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, has dismissed the same. As against which the petitioner preferred this revision. 5. To substantiate his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the eighth respondent has stepped into the shoes of the other co-owners 2, 4 and 5, her presence is necessary for proper adjudication. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the judgment of this Court, while answering the reference, reported in 2014 (3) L.W. 769 {V.L.Dhandapani vs. Revathy Ramachandran}, wherein in paras 15 and 16, it has been held as follows:- “15. Not coming to the reference made, we are of the view that in the light of the decision rendered in Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others, 2013 (2) L.W. 748 (SC) = 2013 (5) SCC 397 , that a transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as a party to the suit. However, we make it clear that the question as to whether such a party is entitled to be impleaded will have to be decided from the facts of the case. Accordingly, the reference sought for is answered. 16. In the light of the above pronouncements, we are of the view that all these revision petitions will have to be allowed. Merely because the sale has been effected a few years after the pendency of the suit, it would not non-suit the purchaser pendente lite from seeking to implead himself as a party defendant. 16. In the light of the above pronouncements, we are of the view that all these revision petitions will have to be allowed. Merely because the sale has been effected a few years after the pendency of the suit, it would not non-suit the purchaser pendente lite from seeking to implead himself as a party defendant. It is also not as if the petitioners in all these revisions are trying to put up a different case other than the case of their vendors. There are no materials to hold that the petitioners are not the bona fide purchasers for the value. Considering the above, we are inclined to allow all the revision petitions. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment reported in 2013 (2) LW 748 (SC) {Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd}. In that judgment, it was stated that even in suit for specific performance, the subsequent purchaser is proper and necessary party since he is claiming a title and hence he prayed for the I.A. to be allowed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent would submit that the eighth respondent herein has purchased the property from the co-sharer and stepped into the shoes of the other co-owners, her presence is not necessary. 8. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, admittedly the suit is filed for partition and separate possession. Except the proposed party, others are co-sharer. During the pendency, respondents 2, 4 and 5 sold the property to the proposed party, who is the eighth respondent herein in respect of item No.5 and therefore, the eighth respondent is entitled to equity. In the judgment in 2013 (2) LW 748 (SC) cited supra, it was held that in a suit for specific performance, since the purchaser's right is affected, he is proper and necessary party. It is appropriate to extract para 3 of the said judgment as below: “3. In the light of the above finding it is futile to deny that the specific performance prayed for by the plaintiff was and continues to be enforceable not only against the original owner defendants but also against the appellant their transferee. It is appropriate to extract para 3 of the said judgment as below: “3. In the light of the above finding it is futile to deny that the specific performance prayed for by the plaintiff was and continues to be enforceable not only against the original owner defendants but also against the appellant their transferee. Sale of immovable property in the teeth of an earlier agreement to sell is immune from specific performance of an earlier contract of sale only if the transferee has acquired the title for valuable consideration, in good faith and without notice of the original contract. That is evident from Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, which is to the following effect:- “19. Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be enforced against (a) either party thereto; (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract; (c) xxxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxxx (e) xxxxxxxx.” 9. In view of the abovesaid judgment, wherein it was specifically held that even in a suit for specific performance, subsequent purchaser is a necessary party for proper adjudication, considering the same, I am of the view that the Trial Court has not considered this aspect from proper perspective and dismissed the same and hence the impugned order of the Trial Court is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the revision is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.