The rule of lis pendens is applicable also to suits for specific performance of contract to transfer immovable property.

The plaintiff has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit for specific performance of Ex. A-3 sale agreement D/-4-7-1974 relating to the suit house belonging to the 1st respondent-1st defendant. The 2nd respondent-2nd defendant is the husband of the 1st respondent and the suit agreement was executed in favour of the appellant by the 2nd respondent, acting as the power agent of 1st respondent, pursuant to the deed of power of attorney Ex. B-1 D/-30-6-1962 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent.

2. The sale consideration under Ex. A-3 is Rs. 30, 000/- and according to the appellant, Rs. 5, 000/- was received by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent as advance. Under the said agreement, the sale deed has to be executed on or before 31-7-1974 when the balance of Rs. 25, 000/- has to be paid. According to the appellant, she informed the respondents 1 and 2 in July, 1974 her readiness to complete the sale and the said respondents agreed and requested the appellant to utilise the three stamp papers lying unused with the said respondents for executing the sale deed. The further plea of the appellant is that on 26-7-1974 she purchased stamp papers for the balance of Rs. 3, 037.50 and that on 28-7-1974 under Ex. A-4, the sale deed was written, but that when the 2nd respondent was asked to come for registering the sale deed, the said respondent represented that he would come to Pudoor the next day, when, on the appellant being ready with the sale deed at the Sub-Registrar's office, Pudoor, the 2nd respondent would sign the deed and register it after receiving the above-said balance sum of Rs. 25, 000/-. The further plea of the appellant is that the 2nd respondent did not turn up at Sub-Registrar's office, Pudoor the next day and despite appellant's request, the 2nd respondent did not subsequently also execute the sale deed and register it and that in Aug., 1974, the 1st respondent wrote to the appellant's husband that the sale agreement was repudiated. The 1st respondent also cancelled the above-said power of attorney on 1-8-1974. The respondents denied that the sale deed was written and that they agreed to come to the Sub-Registrar's office on 29-7-1974 to sign the sale deed and register the same. They also denied that they requested the appellant to utilise the three stamp papers as stated above.

3. The 3rd respondent is the subsequent purchaser from the 1st respondent under Ex.

B-3 D/-5-5-1975 and he contends that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the above sale agreement.

4. In the above circumstances, the present suit was filed on 3-5-1975. The 3rd defendant was impleaded in the suit only in 1988.

5. The trial Court held that the abovesaid power of attorney Ex. B-1 was valid and was in force till it was cancelled on 1-8-1974 by Ex-B-2, that the sale agreement Ex. A-3 was valid and binding on the 1st respondent. It also held that the 1st respondent is estopped from denying the receipt of the abovesaid Rs. 5, 000/- as advance. It also disbelieved the version of the respondents that the 2nd respondent was drunk when he executed Ex. A-3. So far, it held in favour of the appellant.

6. But, it held against the appellant in observing that the appellant was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, in paying the balance sum of Rs. 25, 000/- It also held that the 3rd respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the sale agreement, that the 1st respondent was not bound to execute the sale deed as prayed for that the appellant was also not entitled to reimbursement of the abovesaid sum of Rs. 5, 000/- from respondents 1 and 2.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in holding (1) that the appellant was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract (2) and that the 3rd respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the sale agreement. The learned counsel furth