The doctrine of lis pendens under Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 renders any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit subservient to the rights decreed under the decree or order made in that suit.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard both counsels.

2. This revision-petition is filed by the unsuccessful third-party, who filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'CPC') claiming that he purchased the property on 28/8/2014 from the defendant No.7 in the suit, which was filed for 'Partition'. The suit was filed in the year 2005.

3. The Trial Court 'Dismissed' the application vide I.A.No.119 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of 2005 on 3/7/2015, observing that any alienation made during the pendency of the suit is hit by Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the petitioner has no independent right in the suit property and further, his vendor is already on record and therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit. 3. The point that arises for consideration is:-

"Whether the Trial Court committed any irregularity in the Order, dtd. 3/7/2015 passed in I.A.No.119 of 2015 in O.S.No.8 of 2005?

4. P O I N T:- The facts and circumstances would establish that the revisionpetitioner purchased the property covered by the suit filed for 'Partition' from one of the defendants in the suit on 28/8/2014, pending the suit. The effect of the doctrine of lis pendens as embodied in Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not to annul the transfer, but only to render it subservient to the rights of the parties thereto under the decree or order which may be made in that suit. The fact of said doctrine is to make the decree passed in the suit binding on the transferee if, they happened to be third-party even if they are not parties to the suit.

5. In T. Bhup Narain Singh v. Nazvab Singh, AIR 1957 Pat 729, the Hon'ble Apex court held as under:

"The words "so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein" make it quite clear that the transfer is good except to the extent that it might conflict with rights decreed under the decree or order."

6. In Prabhakar v. Antonia AIR 1971 Goa 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"A transfer or a dealing by a party to a suit during the pendency of the suit or proceeding is not, ipso facto void. It only cannot affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree or order that may be made in the suit or proceeding."

7. While considering the true import and scope of Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaynram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami AIR 1973 SC 569, observed:

"It is evident that the doctrine as stated in Sec. 52, applies not merely to actual transfers of right which are subjectmatter of litigation but to other dealings with it "by any party to the suit or proceeding, so as to affect the right of any other party thereto".

8. It may be stated that the rule/principle enacted in this Sec. is in a sense an extension of the rule of res judicata and makes the adjudication in the suit binding on alienees from parties during the pendency of the suit, just as much as the doctrine of res judicata makes the adjudicating binding, not only on the parties themselves but also on alienees from them after the decree. It affects a purchaser pendente lite, not because it amounts to notice, but because the law does not allow a litigant party to give to others, pending the litigation rights, to the property in dispute, to prejudice the opposite party.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the revision-petitioner was examined as a witness in the suit during the trial.

10. Considering the above facts and law, there are no grounds to interfere with the Order of the Trial Court as there is no material irregularity was committed by the Trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the revision-petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In that view of the matter, the revisionpetition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is 'Dismissed'. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, mi