( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the filing of this second appeal as gathered, from records are as under:

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF filed a suit O. S. 6/75 on the file of the Civil Judge,bijapur for a declaration that alienation made by defendant No. 6 to the suit in favour of defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 is not binding, and declare him as the owner of suit properties and for consequential relief of possession; suit properties are 2 items of agricultural lands bearing sy. No. 94/2 of Yelwar Village, Basavanabagewadi Taluk measuring 15 acres 24 guntas, 21 acres and 34 guntas of land in sy. No. 3 of Mannur Taluk.

( 4 ) THE suit properties originally belonged to one Hanumatharaya. He had 3 sons Ramchandrappa, Saheb Gowda, Shivasang-appa. Plaintiffs are the children of Shivasangappa. After the death of Saheb Gowda, his widow adopted Basavanagowda Saheb Gowda - defendant No. 6 in the present suit (since deceased by his legal representatives ).

( 5 ) THE said Basavanagowda Sahebgowda (defendant No. 6 in the present suit) had originally filed the suit O. S. 67/48 against the present plaintiffs and others on the file of the Civil Judge, Bijapur, for a declaration that he is the adopted son of Saheb Gowda and for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the property of Hanumantharaya and obtained an ex parte preliminary decree of partition on 12-12-1949. Subsequently, he filed a suit special DAR No. 40/53 for drawing final decree which was allowed and the matter was sent to the Special Deputy Commissioner for effecting partition u/s. 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 6 ) THIS ex parte decree came to be challenged by the present plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 by filing a suit O. S. 12/56 against defendant No. 6 and others before the Civil Judge, Bijapur for declaring that the ex parte decree in O. S. 67/48 is a nullity.

( 7 ) DURING the pendency of the suit O. S. 12/56, defendant No. 6 under registered sale-deed dt. 31-10-1956 sold properties bearing block No. 4 i. e. , lands in Mannur Taluk in sy. No. 3 to defendant No. 1 who in turn sold it to defendant No. 2; Similarly, he sold properties bearing sy. No. 94/2 in favour of defendant No. 4 under a registered sale-deed dt. 12-9-1962, who inturn sold to defendant No. 5 on 17-1-1968.

( 8 ) THE suit O. S. 12/1956 came to be dismissed. The dismissal of the suit was challenged by the present plaintiffs 2, 3 and 5 by filing a Regular First Appeal in R. A. 23/65. This appeal ended in a compromise under which, the plaintiffs recognised the adoption of 6th defendant Saheb Gowda and his right to 1/3rd share in the joint family. However the suit properties that was allotted to the share of defendant No. 6 in the suit O. s. 67/48 was re-allotted to the share of the plaintiffs, as a mode of effecting partition and a compromise decree was accordingly drawn on 11-7-1966; this compromise decree was filed in the suit O. S. 67/48 and a final decree was accordingly redrawn in terms of the compromise decree by the Civil Judge on 19-4-1974.

( 9 ) PLAINTIFF contended on the basis of the above facts that they have acquired title to the suit properties as per the compromise. The alienations made by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendants 1, 4 and 5, having taken place during the pendency of ths suit O. S. 12/56,was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, u/s. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; Since defendant No. 6 by then had expired, his l. r. s. were brought on record. They supported the case of the plaintiffs.

( 10 ) THE purchasers of the suit properties defendants 1, 4 and 5 contested the suit. They defended the alienations made in their favour by defendant No. 6, by contending that the compromise decree obtained in R. A. 23/65 was a collusive one between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 6 and hence the doctrine of lis pendens has no application. It was also contended that the preliminary decree in O. S. 67/48 having culminated in draw