ORDER : Unsuccessful petitioners in I.A.No.376 of 2021 who filed petition seeking to implead them as plaintiffs in suit O.S.No.69 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, filed the above revision. 2. 1st Respondent in the revision, being plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.69 of 2012 against the 2nd respondent in revision, being defendant, seeking declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction. 3. In the plaint, it was contended interalia that plaintiff purchased vacant site admeasuring 1183.33 square yards in S.No.110/1 of Agraharam veedhi within the limits of Kasimkota Gram Panchayat from Thopalli Suryakantham and Omkar represented by their power of attorney holders Yellapu Srinivas and Karanam Surya Prakash through a registered sale deed dated 21.07.2008 for valuable consideration; that from the date of purchase, plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of schedule property; originally, vacant site admeasuring 2750 square yards in S.No.110/1 of Kasimkota village belonged to Thopalli people; that Thopalli Suryakantham and Omkar who succeeded to the above extent executed registered agreement of sale-cum-Power of Attorney dated 13.04.2007 in favour of Yellapu Srinivas and Karanam Surya Prakash; that said power of attorney holders alienated vacant site admeasuring 1566.66 square yards, out of 2750 square yards to plaintiff and Kosireddi Syamala Devi through a registered sale deed dated 10.01.2008 and the remaining extent of 1183.33 square yards to plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 21.07.2008; that defendant with an intention to grab the plaint schedule property got created sale agreement-cum-power of attorney dated 01.02.2008 and filed suit O.S.No.36 of 2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle against Yellapu Srinivas and Karanam Surya Prakash, Kubireddy Apparao (plaintiff), Kosireddy Syamala Devi and Malla Bulibabu for permanent injunction and filed I.A.No.167 of 2008 for grant of temporary injunction; that defendants filed detailed counter and the said I.A. is pending disposal; that defendant denied title and hence, suit was filed seeking declaration and consequential permanent injunction in respect of 1183.33 square yards. 4. 4. Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that vendors of plaintiff Suryakantham and Omkar have no right, title or possession over the schedule property and they did not receive any consideration under the agreement dated 13.04.2007; that agreement of sale-cum-power of attorney is nominal, collusive and without any manner of right; that vendors of plaintiff Yellapu Srinivas and Karanam Surya Prakash created speculative litigation; that sale deed dated 21.07.2008 is collusive, nominal and without any consideration; that originally the suit schedule property belonged to Thopalli Venkata Ramayya; that after his death property devolved upon his son Venkata Satyanarayana; that said Venkata Satyanarayana and his minor son, represented by father guardian, sold the schedule property and other properties to one Gonthina Prasada Rao, S/o Padamatayya by executing a registered sale deed dated 25.07.1956 and delivered possession; that item No.2 of sale deed is property covered under by the present suit; that Gonthina Prasada Rao indebted to Vakada Dalappa and his family members, who filed suit O.S.No.175 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Anakapalle; that pursuant to decree, E.P.No.15 of 1969 was filed and the plaint schedule property and other properties belonging to Gonthina Prasadarao were brought to sale; that decree holders Vakada Dalappa and others purchased the said property in the Court sale; that sale certificate was issued in the name of Vakada Dalappa on 04.03.1974; that Vakada Dalappa and other family members used to enjoy the property and later family partition was effected among the members; that Vakada Mahalaxmamma, W/o Ramulu and Vakada Krishna Mohan, S/o Rama Lakshmanarao jointly sold away the schedule property to Dhavala Venkata Suri Nageswararao by executing registered sale deed dated 06.09.1998; that defendant purchased the schedule property under a possessory agreement of sale-cum-power of attorney dated 01.02.2008 and later sale deed dated 11.04.2012 was executed onto himself; that on coming to know about collusive documents, defendant filed suit O.S.No.36 of 2008; that while the said suit is pending, plaintiff created sale deed; that Eastern portion of schedule property is a building, being run for the purpose of Veda Patasala and later, it was gifted to Jayanthi Sesha Padmavathi by a registered gift settlement deed dated 07.11.1977; that defendant and his wife purchased the same by way of registered sale deed dated 24.01.2004; that plaintiff knowing fully well about the possession and enjoyment and purchase of property by defendant on eastern side, however, described the Eastern side wrongly and eventually, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Pending the suit, I.A.No.376 of 2021 was filed under Order I Rule 10 r/w Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC and Rule 29 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice to add the proposed parties as plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, while reiterating the contents in the plaint, it was contended interalia that the plaintiff to meet the medical expenses approached the purchasers and offered to sell the schedule property and accordingly, purchasers purchased the schedule property through five registered sale deeds dated 06.11.2020 for valuable consideration; that they came into possession and enjoyment of schedule property; that when the purchasers constructing the compound wall to safeguard the schedule property, defendant obstructed; that when the purchasers called the plaintiff about the dispute, plaintiff promised to resolve the dispute and showed the decree in O.S.No.36 of 2008 filed by defendant for injunction; that plaintiff also informed the purchasers about pendency of suit O.S.No.69 of 2012 filed by him; that the defendant got issued a lawyer notice dated 07.07.2021 with false allegations suppressing the decree and judgment in O.S.No.36 of 2008; that when they showed the said notice to plaintiff, he informed the purchasers that he issued a proper reply to the said notice and also informed the purchasers to join themselves as plaintiffs in the suit to safeguard their interest along with plaintiff and hence, they filed this application to add them as plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit. 7. Counter was filed by 2nd respondent/defendant opposing the application. 7. Counter was filed by 2nd respondent/defendant opposing the application. In the counter, it was contended interalia that along with the suit plaintiff filed I.A.No.239 of 2012 for grant of temporary injunction and the Court granted exparte interim injunction till 26.04.2012; that he filed I.A.No.246 of 2012 to advance the injunction petition on the ground that plaintiff is trying to dispossess him from the schedule property and the same was allowed on 23.04.2012; that the Court modified the exparte interim injunction to status-quo till 05.06.2012; that plaintiff filed I.A.No.167 of 2014 to detain him in civil prison for violation of status-quo order, however the said petition was dismissed as misconceived on 26.08.2015 by imposing costs of Rs.2,000/- on plaintiff; that having failed in his attempts, plaintiff created sham and nominal documents in respect of schedule property in favour petitioners and on the strength of said documents, plaintiff and petitioners are trying to change the physical features of schedule property; that he filed I.A.No.234 of 2021 to receive documents including photographs with CD and also filed I.A.No.254 of 2021 to dismiss the suit; that on 08.11.2021 plaintiff and petitioners dumped construction material in the schedule property and attempted to change its physical features; that at his instance, police registered Crime No.197 of 2021 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.; that the petitioners claiming to be purchasers of the schedule property pending the suit are bound by result of the suit and thus, they are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit; that in fact plaintiff himself filed a petition to reopen the matter at the fag end to drag on the matter; that petitioners received legal notice got issued by him, but kept quiet without giving reply and eventually, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. By order dated 08.04.2022, trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 9. Heard Sri Prabhala Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for 2nd respondent. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the Court below ought to have seen that purchasers pendente lite are proper and necessary parties to the suit and that 1st respondent/plaintiff have ceased to have any interest in the suit property, having sold the same to petitioners. Vendor will not evince any interest to contest the suit. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the Court below ought to have seen that purchasers pendente lite are proper and necessary parties to the suit and that 1st respondent/plaintiff have ceased to have any interest in the suit property, having sold the same to petitioners. Vendor will not evince any interest to contest the suit. He would submit that no prejudice will be caused to defendant if the petitioners were brought on record as other plaintiffs. He would also submit that transferee pendente lite can be brought on record at any stage of suit or other proceedings and mere non-filing of application immediately after receipt of information is not a ground to reject the application. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Chackadath Varkey Rainu Vs. Kurmapu Savitri and Ors., AIR 2020 AP 13 . 11. Learned counsel for respondent on the other hand, while supporting the order of the Court below would submit that petitioners being aware of pendency of suit, purchased the property and hence, they are neither necessary nor proper parties. He would also submit that it is not the case of proposed parties that plaintiff having alienated the property is not evincing any interest and in fact, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was stated that when the purchasers called the plaintiff and showed the notice issued by defendant, plaintiff informed that he in turn issued proper reply and also advised the purchasers to join in the suit to safeguard their interest. The application is filed to procrastinate the proceedings and thus prayed to dismiss the revision 12. In view of above submissions, the points of consideration are: 1) Whether the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit and are entitled to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5? 2) Whether the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it? 13. Suit is filed for declaration and consequential perpetual injunction. The proposed parties purchased suit schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 06.11.2020 pending the suit. The main ground urged by learned counsel for petitioners is that since the proposed parties purchased the property, to safeguard their interest, they are necessary parties to the suit. 14. 13. Suit is filed for declaration and consequential perpetual injunction. The proposed parties purchased suit schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 06.11.2020 pending the suit. The main ground urged by learned counsel for petitioners is that since the proposed parties purchased the property, to safeguard their interest, they are necessary parties to the suit. 14. It is well settled principle of law that rights of a subsequent purchaser of property pending suit is subservient to the rights of parties under the decree, which may be made in the suit. At the same time, one should not forget that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, subsequent purchasers are entitled to be added as parties to the suit. 15. A necessary party is a person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 16. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act envisaged that; “During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India … of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable 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 under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose”. 17. It would, therefore, be clear that the parties in the suit are prohibited by operation of Section 52 to deal with the property and to transfer or otherwise deal with it in any way affecting the rights of the other parties, except with the order or authority of the Court. 18. In the case on hand, plaintiff initially filed application seeking temporary injunction and the Court below granted exparte interim injunction till 26.04.2012. Defendant immediately filed petition to vacate the interim injunction and the same was allowed on 23.04.2012 modifying the order of exparte interim injunction to status-quo till 05.06.2012. 18. In the case on hand, plaintiff initially filed application seeking temporary injunction and the Court below granted exparte interim injunction till 26.04.2012. Defendant immediately filed petition to vacate the interim injunction and the same was allowed on 23.04.2012 modifying the order of exparte interim injunction to status-quo till 05.06.2012. Later, plaintiff filed I.A.No.167 of 2014 to detain him in civil prison for violation of status-quo order, however the said petition was dismissed as misconceived on 26.08.2015. Defendant filed I.A.No.234 of 2021 to receive documents and also filed I.A.No.254 of 2021 to dismiss the suit. 19. In Sarvinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 539 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “5. Having regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is: whether the respondents are necessary or proper parties to the suit? It cannot be disputed that the foundation for the exclusive right, title and interest in the property, the subject matter of the suit, is founded upon the registered Will executed by Hira Devi, the mother of the appellant as on May 26, 1952. The trial Court noted that in a suit filed on a previous occasion by the appellant, the will was propounded as basis for an exclusive right, title and interest in the said property. He impleaded Rajender Kaur, one of the daughters of Hira Devi, to the suit along with two other sisters and suit came to be decreed by the trial Court on March 29, 1974. The decree became final. In view of those facts, the necessary conclusion that can be deduced is that the foundation for the relief of declaration in the second suit is the registered Will executed by Hira Devi in favour of the appellant on May 26, 1952. The respondents indisputably cannot challenge the legality or the validity of the will executed and registered by Hira Devi on May 26, 1952. Though it may be open to the legal heirs of Rajender Kaur, who was a party to the earlier suit, to resist the claim on any legally available or tenable grounds, those grounds are not available to the respondents. Under those circumstances, the respondents cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit. Under those circumstances, the respondents cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit. A necessary party is one whose presence is absolutely necessary and without whose presence the issue cannot effectually and completely be adjudicated upon and decided between the parties. A proper party is one whose presence would be necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the disputes. In either case the respondents cannot be said to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit in which the primary relief was found on the basis of the registered Will executed by the appellant's mother, Smt. Hira Devi. Moreover, admittedly the respondents claimed right, title and interest pursuant to the registered sale deeds said to have been executed by the defendants-heirs of Rajender Kaur on December 2, 1991 and December 12, 1991, pending suit. 6. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act envisages that "during the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India...of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable properly 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 under the decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose." It would, therefore, be clear that the defendants in the suit were prohibited by operation of Section 52 to deal with the property and could not transfer or otherwise deal with it in any way affecting the rights of the appellant except with the order or authority of the Court. Admittedly, the authority or order of the Court had not been obtained for alienation of those properties. Therefore, the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Section 52. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit.” 20. In Chappidi Subbareddy and Ors. Vs. Chappidi Narapureddy and Ors., 2006 (3) ALD 516 (AP), the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held thus: “24. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit.” 20. In Chappidi Subbareddy and Ors. Vs. Chappidi Narapureddy and Ors., 2006 (3) ALD 516 (AP), the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held thus: “24. From a conspectus of all the aforesaid judgments, touching upon the present aspect, broadly, the following would emerge; Firstly, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. or under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C., as a general principle; Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right; Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party; (Emphasis added) Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record; Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave and come on record that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record; Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of his (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented; Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and, Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C., can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit.” 21. In Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 384 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “36. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: 1. In Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 384 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “36. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: 1. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. 3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the Plaintiff. 5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment.” 22. Thus, a conspectus of expressions in the above judgments would indicate that petitioners should not only satisfy the Court that they are proper and necessary parties to suit but also satisfy that they are innocent purchasers without knowledge of the suit etc. As a matter of right, the purchasers pendent lite cannot come on record, however with the permission of the Court. The Court considering the facts of the case, may permit them to come on record as parties. As a matter of right, the purchasers pendent lite cannot come on record, however with the permission of the Court. The Court considering the facts of the case, may permit them to come on record as parties. Of course, at any stage of the proceedings, they can come on record, however, subject to their conduct and, also the principles summed up in the judgments referred to supra. 23. A perusal of facts of the case on hand would indicate that petitioners purchased the property pending the suit. Seems the original document is in the Court. Purchasers, in the normal course would have insisted to the original document. However, case on hand, even without original document, sale deeds were executed by plaintiff in favour of implead petitioners. Plaintiff evidence was closed on 22.01.2018. Defendants evidence was closed on 24.02.2020. Plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.65, 66 and 67 of 2020 to re-open, recall and receiving document. The same were allowed on 11.12.2020. Document Ex.A-8 was marked on 19.01.2021. Plaintiff did not disclose about the alienation in favour implead petitioners, though the transactions are dated 06.11.2020. For further cross examination the suit underwent number of adjournments. At that juncture application was filed by third party purchasers seeking impleadment and for consequential amendments. 24. I.A. was dismissed on 08.04.2022. Copy was made ready on 30.04.2022. Revision was filed on 12.07.2022. The same was returned twice and revision was numbered on 01.08.2022. Suit is coming up for arguments from 07.07.2022. Thus, the sequence of events referred to supra would prima facie indicate that petitioners are having knowledge of the litigation and purchased the property without permission of the Court. Since the petitioners did not allege any collusion between plaintiff and defendant in the suit and the suit is coming for arguments this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference under Art 227 of the Constitution of India. Revision fails and it is liable to be dismissed. 25. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Since the suit is coming up for arguments, the Court below shall dispose of suit expeditiously keeping in view the circular ROC No. 560/OP CELL/2022 dated 23.11.2022. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.