The doctrine of lis pendens, as embodied in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, renders any transfer of immovable property, the right to which is directly and specifically in question in a pending litigation, inoperative against the party to the suit.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance. The suit was decreed in favour of the purchaser by a learned single judge of this court on 4-12-1981. From that decree the vendor appeals to this court. A transferee of the property has also filed cross-objections.

( 2 ) THE appellant Joginder Singh Bedi was the owner of House No. A-67 South Extension Part I, New Delhi. He is the vendor. On 29-4-1972 he agreed to sell the house to Narotam Singh, respondent No. 2, a Thailand based Indian for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000. He is the purchaser. At the time of the execution of the agreement to sell a sum of Rs. 20,000 was paid by the purchaser to the vendor. In furtherance of the agreement to sell the vendor executed a sale deed in favour of the purchaser on 3-5-1972 engrossed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 10,800. The purchaser asked the vendor to obtain an income tax clearance certificate and to get the sale deed registered. The purchaser was prepared to pay the balance of the purchase price, that is, Rs. 1,15,000 at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The vendor did not do his part. He took no steps to obtain the income. tax clearance certificate. And without the clearance certificate the sale deed could not be registered. The purchaser sent a telegram and issued a notice to the vendor on 3-7-1972 asking him to complete the sale. But as the vendor did not come forward the purchaser instituted a suit for specific performance on 10-7-1972.

( 3 ) AT the threshold the vendor pleaded that he had already sold the property to his sister Smt. Nirmal Jyot on 3-8-1972. Therefore, the purchaser sought amendment of the plaint by* seeking to add the sister as a party defendant to the suit. The amendment was allowed on May 14, 1973. The sister was added as defendant No. 2 to the suit. She will hereafter be generally referred to as the sister. She is the transferee. Her case is that she is a transferee in good faith for value without notice.

( 4 ) THIS is atriangular contest on the one side is the purchaser. On the other side are the vendor and his sister, the transferee. The vendor and the sister contested the purchaser s suit on a variety of grounds. Several issues were raised. But the central point in this case is : What is the effect of the sale made by the vendor in favour of the sister on 3-8-1972 ? The transaction is clearly hit by the doctrine of lis pendens contained in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,. 1882. The suit was filed by the purchaser on 10-7-1972. The vendor sold the property to the sister on 3-8-1972. Section 52 provides that pendents lite neither party to the litigation in which any right to immovable property is in question can alienate or otherwise deal with such property so as to affect his opponent. On the doctrine I of lis pendens the leading case in England is Bellamy v. Sabine, (1857) I Dandj566 = 44 English Reports 842 (1 ). In India the leading case is Faiyaz Hussain Khan v. Munshi Prag Narain, (1907) 34 Ind. App. 102 (2 ). The legal position seems to be clear. The sale in favour of the sister will not affect the rights of the purchaser who has obtained a decree in his favour. The only question is whether the decree has rightly been passed.

( 5 ) THE doctrine of lis pendens with which section 52 is concerned is not, as Turner LJ observed in Bellamy v. Sabine (supra), "founded upon any of the peculiar tenets of a Court of Equity as to implied or constructive notice. It is. . . a doctrine common to the Courts both of law and of equity, and rests . . . . upon this foundation, that it would plainly be impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination if alienations pendente lite were permitted to prevail. " The correct mode of stating the doctrine, as Cranworth L. C. observed in the same case, is that "pendente lite neither party to the litigation can alienate the property in dispute so as to affect his opponent. " "where a litiga