Locus standi of a subsequent purchaser barred impleadment and restoration where only one suit property item was acquired.

In a suit for bare injunction relating to four items of property, a subsequent purchaser who acquired only one item after the suit was filed lacked locus to seek impleadment and restoration after the plaintiff's death. The court noted that she had no subsisting cause of action to continue the suit as framed, and the right to sue did not survive to her on these facts, especially since she sought restoration of the entire suit despite purchasing only one item. The Madras HC found that the trial court erred in allowing both impleadment and restoration, and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a subsequent purchaser of only one item of the suit property had locus standi to seek impleadment and restoration of a suit for bare injunction after the death of the plaintiff.

Analysis: The suit was only for bare injunction in respect of four items of property. The proposed party purchased only the first item after the suit was filed and, therefore, had no subsisting cause of action to continue the suit as framed. Since the plaintiff had died and the suit had been dismissed for default, the proposed party could not seek restoration of the entire suit, particularly for items not purchased by her. The right to sue did not survive to the proposed party in the facts of the case, and the trial court had erred in permitting impleadment and restoration.

Conclusion: The applications for impleadment and restoration were not maintainable, and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

---