The doctrine of lis pendens applies to prevent any new dealings with property during litigation, and the civil court has jurisdiction over tenancy claims, with the Land Tribunal's decision in suo motu proceedings being subservient to the civil court's decision.

Pareed Pillay, C.J.

Plaintiff in O.S.No. 231 of 1976 is the appellant. He filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of his title. His case is that he obtained the property in partition as per Ext. Al dated 5-6-1946. Originally the plaint schedule property was described as 40 cents in R.S.1/B2 and 3 cents in R.S.ID/38 of Ayakad Airisom in Alathur Taluk. By amendment of the plaint as per I.A.No. 708 of 1982 the description of the property was corrected as R.S. IE/1 Al having an extent of 20 and 1/8 cents. First defendant filed written statement contending that her husband and father of the 2nd defendant obtained the plaint schedule property on lease 35 years prior to the institution of the suit from plaintiff's brother Subramanya Iyer.

2. Contention of the plaintiff is that the courts below wrongly relied on Exts. B6 and B7 to uphold the lenancy claim set up by the defendants. II is contended that the courts below obviously overlooked the fact that Ext. B6 order was passed during the pendency of the suit. On the basis of Ext. B6 the Land Tribunal held that second defendant is entitled to tenancy right in the property. That finding was accepted by the Munsiff and accordingly the suit was dismissed. The Sub Judge held that notice was served on the plaintiff in the suo motu proceedi ngs before the Land Tribunal and as there is no rule preventing the Land Tribunal from making an order during the pendency of the suit and as Ext. B6 order has become final plaintiff is not entitled to'the decree sought for.

3. The main contention of the appellant is that no significance can be attached to Ext. B6 order of the Tribunal as it is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Counsel relied on Parameswaran Tampi v. Thomas Podiyt.ni (1984 KLT 397) decisionofa Division Bench of [his Court for the proposition that the decision in suo mote proceedings (Ext. B6 ) is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Counsel for the defendants, on the other hand contended that Ext. B6 would operate as res judicaia and merely because the suit happened to be filed earlier the significance and importance of Ext. B6 cannot be whittled down. In other words it is contended that the order of the Land Tribunal would operate as res judicata even though it was obtained pending the civil suit.

4. The crucial point for determination is whether the order of the Land Tribunal (Ext. B6 ) obtained during the pendency of the civil suit can be relied on by the defendants to uphold their claim of tenancy. Contention of the plaintiff is that it is for the civil court to have referred the question of tenancy set up by the defendants under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and obtained the findings of the Tribunal which itself would be open to challenge before the appellate court and should not have relied on the Tribunal's finding in suo mote proceedings initiated after the initiation of suit.

5. The settled legal position is that the doctrine as expounded in S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies not merely to actual transfers of rights which are subject matter of litigation but to other dealings with it by any party to the suit or proceeding, so as to affect the right of any other party thereto. Thus jwhen a civil suit is pending before a court where the crucial matter to be decided is regarding the tenancy set up by the defendant the decision of the Land Tribunal is suo mote proceedings initialed long alter the suit cannot affect the right of the plaintiff] Section 52 has been enacted with a definite purpose. The purpose is that when any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of the opposite party. Ext. B6 order of the Land Tribunal which is admittedly obtained during the pendency of the civil suit goes to the extent of extinguishing plaintiffs rights in the property/