1. Following the ruling in Matilal Pal v. Preo Lall Mitra (1911) 13 C.W.N. 226 and Jahar Lal Bhutra v. Bhupendra Nath Basu (1922) I.L.R. 49 C. 495, we hold that the doctrine of lis pendens applies as regards suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immoveable properties just as much as to suits for possession of immoveable properties. As observed by Mookerjee, J. in the latter case, "The obvious reason for this is that if when the jurisdiction of the Court was once attached, it could be ousted by the transfer of the defendants interest, there would be no end to litigation and justice would be defeated." That the principle underlying the doctrine applies to Court sales such as we have to deal with here, has also been held. The decision of the lower appellate Court is therefore right; and the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.