Devadoss, J.

1. The only point in this case is whether the sale by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. The 2nd defendant who is the wife of the 1st defendant brought a suit for maintenance and asked for a charge on the property of the husband. 1st defendant sold one of the six items belonging to him to the plaintiff in order to pay off a decree debt. The 2nd defendant obtained a decree for maintenance and the plaintiffs suit is for a declaration that the charge in her favour is not binding upon the plaint property. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs sale was not affected by the doctrine of lis pendens and the charge for maintenance would not bind the property is the hands of the plaintiff. Mr. Ramamurthi for the appellant contends that inasmuch as the property was sold pending her suit the sale must be held subject to the result of the suit. It is difficult to see how the doctrine of lis pendens applies to a case like this for under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act right to the immoveable property should be directly and specifically in question in the suit. When a wife brings a suit against the h