Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.

1. In this reference the question for determination is whether the doctrine of lis pendens, as embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, applies when the suit during the pendency of which the transfer takes place is subsequently compromised and a decree is given in pursuance of the compromise; or, in other words, was the case of Vythinadayyan v. Subramanya I.L.R (1889) Mad. 439 rightly decided?

2. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is in these terms:

During the active prosecution in any Court having authority in British India Chief Justice, or established beyond the limits of British India by the Governor-General in Council of a contentious suit or proceeding 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 the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.

3. I will deal first with the question of the construction of the section apart from the authorities.

4. In sup