JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on leave to appeal filed by the applicant. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the application that respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a suit for partition & injunction against respondent Nos.5 to 8 regarding the suit property. The suit was filed on 02.07.2013. Prior to the said date on 26.06.2013 the property in question had already been transferred by Smt. Laxmi Devi – respondent No. 5 to three persons viz. Rajat Munjal, Gulshan Kumar & Amit Kumar. Before the trial court, while respondent Nos. 6 and 8 did not appear, the suit was contested by respondent Nos. 5 and 7, however, the fact of transfer of the property was apparently not disclosed. Whereafter, three purchasers of the property transferred the suit property to the appellant on 15.01.2014 by a registered sale deed and since then the appellant is in possession of the suit property. 3. It is submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 10.01.2018 by way of a preliminary decree for partition holding that the plaintiffs had 1/5th share in the suit property and further an injunction has also been granted. It is submitted that the applicant-appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property and, therefore, leave may be granted. 4. Though no reply to the application has been filed, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit property has been transferred during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the transaction is affected by provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘the Act’). Further submissions have been made that the plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that the suit property has been transferred by Smt. Laxmi Devi before filing of the suit. Further objection has been raised that the predecessors of the applicant has not been impleaded as party and, therefore, in their absence the application/appeal is not maintainable and the application for leave to appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. The dates are not in dispute, wherein, the suit property was transferred by Smt. Laxmi Devi before filing of the suit and, thereafter, the same has been transferred to the appellant by the three purchasers from Smt. Laxmi Devi on 14.01.2015. 7. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs without impleading the transferees as parties-defendants to the suit. The non-impleadment, it is claimed, was on account of unawareness regarding the transfer, would not affect the fundamental aspect that the transferees were not parties to the suit. The very fact that the said transferees were not parties to the suit, the transfer made by them to the appellant-applicant on 14.01.2015 during the pendency of the suit cannot come within the purview of provisions of Section 52 of the Act as it is sine qua non for applicability of the said provision that the person dealing with the immovable property must be a party to the suit. 8. So far as non-impleadment of the predecessors of the appellant are concerned, once the property stands transferred to the appellant, he essentially steps into the shoes of the said transferees and therefore, there is no necessity for impleadment of the said predecessors in interest as party to the present appeal. 9. So far as the interest of the appellant or the fact that the appellant is affected by decree passed by the trial court is concerned, in view of the transfer made in his favour and the claim made that he is in possession of the suit property, he is directly affected by the impugned preliminary decree dated 10.01.2018. 10. In view thereof, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. He is permitted to file appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2018. Office to proceed.