Lis pendens bars later allottees from forcing impleadment in property suits; one connected issue was remanded for facts.

Where immovable property is directly and specifically in issue, a pendente lite partition is treated as a dealing governed by lis pendens and does not oblige the plaintiff or decree-holder to implead every later allottee before proceeding in the suit or execution. If the original suit was properly constituted against the manager in a representative capacity, the decree continues to bind the family or tarwad and those claiming under the later partition. On the connected thavazhi No. 1 matter, the court found the record insufficient on possession and proper representation after the manager's death, so the matter was remanded for fresh factual findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partition effected during the pendency of a suit or after decree, in which immovable property is directly and specifically in question, obliges the plaintiff or decree-holder to implead the persons to whom the property was allotted before proceeding further; (ii) Whether the application relating to thavazhi No. 1 required remand for fresh findings on possession and proper representation after the death of the original manager.

Issue (i): Whether a partition effected during the pendency of a suit or after decree, in which immovable property is directly and specifically in question, obliges the plaintiff or decree-holder to implead the persons to whom the property was allotted before proceeding further.

Analysis: Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies the rule of lis pendens and renders transfers or other dealings with the property during the pendency of such litigation ineffective against the decree-holder. A partition is a dealing with the property within the meaning of the section. Where the original suit is properly constituted against the manager or karnavan in a representative capacity, subsequent partition does not shift the burden to the plaintiff or decree-holder to bring in every transferee or allottee under the partition, whether at the trial stage or in execution. The proceedings remain binding on the family or tarwad and on those who derive title under the later partition, so long as the original representation was valid.

Conclusion: The decree-holders were not bound to implead the persons who obtained allotments under the later partitions, and the applications for re-delivery in the four connected matters were rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the application relating to thavazhi No. 1 required remand for fresh findings on possession and proper representation after the death of the original manager.

Analysis: The record did not permit a satisfactory finding on whether the applicants were in possession of all or only some of the properties at the time of delivery, because both sides were not given a full opportunity to lead evidence on that question. A further factual inquiry was also needed on whether the persons competent to represent thavazhi No. 1 after the death of the original manager had been impleaded. In these circumstances, a remand was necessary so that the factual issues could be determined on evidence.

Conclusion: The matter relating to thavazhi No. 1 was remanded for fresh findings.

Final Conclusion: The rule of lis pendens governed the subsequent partitions and protected the decree-holders from any obligation to implead the later allottees, while one connected matter was sent back for limited factual determination.

Ratio Decidendi: In a non-collusive suit where immovable property is directly and specifically in question, subsequent partition or other pendente lite dealing does not require the plaintiff or decree-holder to implead the persons obtaining title under it, and the decree binds them as well as the original parties.

---