The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens to a proceeding before a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the principle that the title in immovable property sold in a public auction passes to the auction-purchaser on the confirmation of the auction sale.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by plaintiff-1 is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 1-4- 1980 passed in R. A. No. 99/1976 by the Principal Civil Judge, Chikodi confirming the Judgment and decree dated 25-8-1976 passed in O. S. No. 24/1973 by the Principal munsiff, Hukeri.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT-1 is the defendant and respondent-2 is plaintiff-2. The appeal is referred to a Division Bench on the ground that it involves a question as to whether the doctrine of lis pendens could be extended to a proceeding before a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) THE appellant and respondent-2 have filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that they are the owners of the land bearing Block No. 68 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas, phot kharab 16 guntas, situated at Hatti Alur village in Hukeri Taluk and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and the persons claiming through him from disturbing the plaintiffs of their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs claim that one Sri Revaji Revappa Pattar (hereinafter referred toas Revaji) was the owner of the suit land. He sold the same to the plaintiffs on 27-8-1966 under a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- in order to pay off the Tagai loan due to the Society. The further case of the plaintiffs is that pursuant to the sale in their favour, Revaji handed over possession of the suit land and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same; that the auction sale of the suit land held for recovery of the tagai loan was not valid; that Revaji sold the suit land to the plaintiffs after the order passed by the Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal (for short MRAT) in RAB No. 63/1964.

( 5 ) THE defendant contested the suit and inter alia contended that on the date of the sale i. e. , 27-8-1966 effected by Revaji, he had no saleable interest, inasmuch as, the auction sale was confirmed long before that date; that the sale of the land in favour of the plaintiffs by Revaji was also hit by lis pendens because the defendant had filed W. P. No. 2332/1965 in the High Court challenging the order of the MRAT passed in RAB 63/1964 and the sale was effected during the pendency of that writ petition; that the writ petition was ultimately allowed and the order of the MRAT was set aside and those passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commis sioncr and the Divisional Commissioner affirming the auction sale were restored; therefore, on the date of the sale Revaji had no saleable interest in the suit land.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed and tried the following issues: 1) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the owners of the suit property? 2) Whether plaintiffs prove that they were in lawful possession of the suit property on the date of suit? 3) Whether defendant proves that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable as contended by him in para 9 of the written statement? 4) Whether the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Revaji Revappa pattar in favour of the plaintiffs is hit by the principles of Uspendensl 5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs of declaration and injunction sought? 6) What relief? the trial Court answered Issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the negative and Issue No. 3 in the affirmative. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Thus the trial Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in lawful possession of the suit land on the date of the suit. It also further held that the sale in favour of the plaintiffs was not hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.

( 7 ) IN the appeal preferred by plaintiff-1, the lower appellate Court raised the following points for dete rmination: 1) Whether the plaintiffs have acquired any right, title and interest in the suit land by the sale deed dated 27-8-1966 executed by Revaji? 2) Whether the sale in favour of the plaintiffs under Ex. P-l on 27-8-1966 is