Rule 102 of Order 21 CPC does not apply to transfers of property made during the pendency of a declaratory suit, as such suits do not involve the possession of immovable property.

U.N.Sinha, J.

1. These two civil revision applications have been filed by one Baldeo Pandey, who was a defendant in Title Suit No. 219 of 1948 instituted by Marachho Kuer, an opposite Party in these two cases. The Civil revisions arise out of two applications filed by two sets of persons under 0. 21, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order has been passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 12 of 1963 to the effect that these two applications will be heard together. Hence this judgment will govern both the cases.

2. The facts are as follows. In 1948, Marachho Kuer had instituted Title Suit No. 219 of 1948 against Baldeo Pandey, disputing an alleged adoption of Baldeo Pandey by one Gopal Tiwary, husband of Marachho Kuer. According to Marachho Kuer, she was the legal heir of Gopal Tiwary and Baldeo Pandey was not his adopted son. The suit was decreed in 1955 and Title Appeal No. 91 of 1955 had been preferred by Baldeo Pandey, In the meantime, by two sale deeds dated the 7th October 1948 and the 26th October 1948, Marachho Kuer had transferred certain properties to the two sets of the applicants under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that during the pendency of Title Appeal No. 91 of 1955, the dispute between the parties to the appeal were referred to arbitration. An award was filed by the arbitrator and a decree was passed in terms of the award. The decree was executed by Balded Pandey and he obtained delivery of possession of certain-properties mentioned in Schedule B of the award, which, according to the award, Baldeo Pandey was entitled to. Then the two sets of purchasers under the two sale deeds mentioned above, filed their applications under Order 21, Rule 100, alleging that they had been wrongfully dispossessed of the properties purchased by them from Marachho Kuer. The application filed by the purchasers of the 7th of October was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 165 of 1961 and the application filed by the purchasers of the 26th of October was registered as Mr. cellaneous Case No. 166 of 1961. The order under revision has disposed of both the miscellaneous cases, which have been allowed. Thus Baldeo Pandey has come up to this Court in these two civil revision applications.

3. The two points which have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment of the learned Munsif, where he has stated that Baldeo Pandeys objections were that the miscellaneous cases were hit by the principles of Ms pendens and that the applicants under Order 21, Rule 100 were estopped from challenging the award decree as they were parties to the award. After stating the case of the respective parties, the learned Munsif framed two points for determination, which are;

"1. Are the applications maintainable?

2. Whether the applicants were in possession of the respective properties before D. P. If so, whether on their own account or not?"

It seems that substantially the points urged before the learned Munsif were that the sale deeds in favour of the two sets of the applicants were not genuine documents and were not supported by consideration. The conclusion of the learned Munsif was against Baldeo Pandey and the learned Munsif has hold that it was not possible to hold that the sale deeds were farzi transactions. On the question of possession, the learned Munsif has held that the applicants before him were in possession of the properties claimed by them in their own right. As the applicants had been dispossessed, the miscellaneous cases were allowed as stated above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above two contentions by putting forward a case, firstly, that in view of Rule 102 of Order 21 of the Code ot Civil Procedure, the applicants were not entitled to a decision in their favour. It is urged that as the transfers in favour of the applicants had been made subsequent to the institution of the Title suit No. 219 of 1948, en