A sale of property during the pendency of a suit in which the right to the property is directly and specifically in question is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore, the transferee cannot get title to the property.

This appeal is by the defendants, who lost in both the Courts below.

2. The material facts are:

The plaintiff purchased the suit land measuring 2.77 acres, fully described in the Schedule to the plaint, from its owner Wahengban Selungba Singh, who was in possession, by a registered sale deed dated 19-1-1953. His vendor delivered Khas possession of the land to the plaintiff, who continued in possession. On or about 25-12-1959, defendant No. 2 prevented the plaintiff from collecting rents from his tenants in respect of the suit land. On enquiry, he learnt that the defendant No. 2 had obtained mutation on 14-3-1968, vide Mutation Case No. 287 of 1957, without any notice to him. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of mutation but it was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner of Manipur. He then filed Title Suit No. 99 of 1960 (130 of 1962) in the Court of Munsiff, Manipur, for declaration of his title to, and for recovery of khas possession of, the land and got a decree on 8-6-1965. Defendant No. 2 preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Manipur, but the appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff executed his decree, vide Execution Case No. 47 of 1965 (5 of 1968) of the Court of Munsiff and got khas possession of the land on eviction of defendant No. 2 therefrom. The plaintiff further alleges that even after the execution of the decree, the defendants were disturbing him in his possession. On further enquiry, the plaintiff found that during the pendency of Title Suit No. 99 of 1960 (130 of 1962) in the Court of the Munsiff, defendant No. 2, by two registered sale deeds dated 23-1-1961 and 1-2-1962, sold the land in dispute to defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs case is that defendant No. 1 cannot get title to the suit land under the abovementioned sale deeds as they are hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

3. The plaintiff also has claimed mesne profit of Rs. 324 per year from the defendants.

4. Only defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement and contested the suit. He denies the allegations of the plaintiff. He admits the purchase of the disputed land from defendant No. 2 by two sale deeds dated 23-1-1961 and 1-2-1962, aforesaid. He however asserts that defendant No. 2 had title to the suit land. He further alleges that the sales were in pursuance of a contract for sale dated 25-2-1959 between him and defendant No. 2. He pleads that he was not aware of Title Suit No. 99 of 1960, aforesaid. He further pleads that the suit is barred under Art. 142 of the Limitation Act of 1968.

5. The learned Munsiff framed a number of issues, of which the following two are material:

"6. Is the transfer of the suit land by defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1, hit by Section 52 of the T. P. Act?

xx xx xx

9. Is the suit barred by Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908?"

6. Ext. A/1 is the certified copy of the judgment dated 8-6-1965 passed by the Munsiff in T. S. No. 99 of 1960 (130 of 1962). Ext. A/1 shows that it was instituted on 2-8-1960 and decided on 8-6-1965. Ext. A/15 and Ext. A/16 are the sale deeds dated 23-1-1961 and 1-2-1962 respectively. The sales, therefore, obviously were during the pendency of the suit and hit by Section 52 of the T. P. Act. Learned counsel, Shri T. Bhubon Singh, however, submits that the contract for sale, Ext. B/1 dated 25-2-1959, had been entered into between defendants Nos. 1 and 2 before the filing of the suit. He submits that the contract for sale (Ext. B/1) is as a part of the sale ending on the date of the registration of the deeds and is anterior to the suit. It is difficult to accept this submission of learned counsel.

7. Section 52 of the T. P. Act, inter alia, provides that during the pendency in any court of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to