S.A. Kadar, J.

1. These two revision petitions arise out of the same matter and the parties are the same. CRP.No. 4800 of 1984 arises out of the order of the 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in E.A. No. 1282 of 1984 in E.P. No. 342 of 1983 and the petitioner in the execution application is the revision petitioner. C.R.P. No. 219 of 1985 arises out of the order of the said judge in E.P. 342 of 1983 and the second respondent therein, who is the petitioner in E.A. No. 1282 of 1984 is the revision petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are these:- The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 5540 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras against the second respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the scheduled property, entered into between them on 30.10.1967. The suit was decreed on 24.1.1974. Pending suit, the second respondent herein, who is the defendant, has sold the suit property in favour of the revision petitioner by a deed of sale dated 11.5.1972. In E.P. No. 226 of 1979 the 1st respondent/decree-holder filed the execution against the 2nd respondent/defendant for the execution of the deed of sale. In E.A. No. 1523/79 in the said execution petition the 1st respondent/decree-holder sought to implead the revision petitioner herein as a party to the execution petition as he had obtained a deed of sale pendente lite. The application was resisted by the revision petitioner but was allowed on 24.7.1979 and the revision petitioner was impleaded as the 2nd respondent in the execution petition. The execution application was allowed and the deed of sale was executed by the Court. There after, the 1st respondent/decree-holder filed E.P. No. 342/83 for delivery of possession after removing the superstructure put up by the revision petitioner subsequent to the sale in her favour. The said execution petition was resisted by the revision petitioner, who contended that she had put up the superstructure worth several lakhs of rupees, that she is not bound by the decree for specific performance obtained by the 1st respondent/decree-holder/revision petitioner and that the decree-holder is not entitled to the relief for possession as against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner then filed E.A. No. 1282/84 in the aforesaid E.P. No. 342/83 for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 5540/70 obtained by the 1st respondent/decree- holder is not executable against the revision petitioner and for the dismissal of the execution petition.

3. The learned 10th Asst. Judge by his order dated 16.11.1984 dismissed E.A. No. 1282/84 holding that the sale in favour of the revision petitioner was affected by lis pendens and she is not entitled to contend that the decree obtained by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent is not executable. Consequently he allowed E.P. No. 342/83 and directed delivery. The revision petitioner has, therefore, come forward with these two revisions.

4. It is an admitted fact that the deed of sale in favour of the revision petitioner executed by the defendant/2nd respondent herein is subsequent to the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein and the sale is therefore hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

5. The main contention advanced by Mr. M. Srinivasan, learned senior Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner, believing in good faith that she is absolutely entitled to the property, has made vast improvements by putting up a superstructure at a cost of several lakhs of rupees and she has, therefore, a right to require the decree-holder/1st respondent herein, who is seeking to evict her on the basis of a better title either to have the value of the improvements estimated and paid to her or to sell his interest in the property to the revision petitioner. Reliance is sought to be placed on Section 51 of