Transferees pendente lite cannot seek impleadment when their purchase is subject to existing partition litigation.

Purchasers who acquired property during the pendency of partition proceedings were held not entitled to impleadment, because a transfer pendente lite is subject to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and cannot prejudice the rights of the existing litigants. A plea of bona fide purchase did not improve their position, since their rights could not exceed those of their vendors. The Court also referred to surrounding circumstances affecting any claim to equity, including a dispute over the same property and a related auction sale found to have been vitiated by fraud. The refusal to implead the transferees was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transferees pendente lite were entitled to be impleaded as parties in the partition suit.

Analysis: The revision arose from refusal to implead purchasers who had acquired the suit property during pendency of the suit. The applicable principle was that a transfer pendente lite is governed by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and cannot operate to affect the rights of the other parties to the litigation. The claim of bona fide purchase did not assist the petitioners because, even on that assumption, their rights could not exceed those of their vendors. The Court also noted circumstances indicating that the purchasers could not claim any equity, including the surrounding dispute over the very same property and the finding that a related court auction sale had been vitiated by fraud.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to impleadment and the order refusing to implead them was sustained.

---