I respectfully agree with the observations made by Natarajan, J. - (1.) The above revision is filed assailing the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Sivapanga, in I. A. No. 260 of 1981 in A.S. No. 179 of 1978 dated 26th July, 1982. It appears from the facts of the Case and also as argued by the respective counsel that the petitioners filed O.S. No. 105 of 1975 before the District Mursif, Sivaganga, against the respondents herein for a declaration of title to the suit property and for an injunction. Defendants 4 to 7 in the suit, submitted to a decree. The suit went on and ultimately came to be dismissed on 25th July, 1978. I am repeating this date because the first respondent Meenakshi Achi purchased the suit property measuring 3.12 acres in entirety from defendants 1 and 2 on 30th July, 1978, immediately after the dismissal of the suit. In the meanwhile, the petitioners who lost O.S. No. 105 of 1975 preferred A.S. No. 179 of 1978 before the Sub-Court, Sivaganga. When the 1st respon-dent herein who is a purchaser of the suit property came to know that an appeal had been filed by the plaintiffs, she filed I.A. No. 260 of 1981 to implead herself as a party to the appeal. It was contended by her in the said interlocutory application, that defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, who had the right, title and interest, had sold the property to her, that it is she who has to contest the appealas she had purchased the property. For, defendants 1 and 2 have no interest in contesting the matter, as they have sold their entire interest in the property to the 1st respondent herein. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application. It is against this order the above revision, is filed.
(2.) Mr. K. Alagiriswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends before me that the purchaser of a property pendente lite has no right to be impleaded as a party to the appeal. He relies on the decision in Annapoorni Ammal v. Jayavelu Mudaliar1, and in Doraikannu Asari v. Nataraja Chetti2. The main question that has to be considered in this case is, whether the person who has purchased the property, particularly in entirety, from defendants 1 and 2 is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the appeal which is filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners herein Natarajan, J. in Annapoorni Ammal v. Jayavelu Mudaliar1, has clearly observed, in paragraph 3 of the judgment thus: "A conspect us of all the rules in Order 22 will show that the Order predominantly deals with cases where there is change of status due to the totality of the interest of a party in pending suit passing on to another person or totally abating under certain circumstances. I respectfully agree with the observations made by Natarajan, J.
(3.) In the present case, defendants 1 and 2 have sold the right, title and interest they had over the suit property in entirety, to the 1st respondent herein. There is a change of status due to the sale of the totality of the interest which defendants 1 and 2 had over the property. Defendants 1 and 2 have no more interest in the suit property due to the sale effected by them to the 1st respondent herein. Under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the 1st respondent becomes the sole and absolute owner of the property which is the subject-matter of the suit, she is a necessary and proper party to the appeal.;