The doctrine of lis pendens applies to the sale of property during the pendency of litigation, and a bona fide purchaser is not protected.

Shamsher Bahadur, J.

1. The sole question for determination in the appeal is whether the sale of the land in suit in favour of the appellants is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens?

2. The last male owner of the suit property was Kundan Lal on whose death, his daughter Ishwar Devi succeeded to it. On Ishwar Devis death on 4th of June, 1950, the question of succession arose once again. Mst. Karti and Mst. Muni appeared before the Revenue Assistant and stated that they wanted the mutation to be in the name of Sunder, husband of Ishwar Devi. The statement was made on 12th of September, 1950, and after verifying from the pedigree-table, the Revenue Assistant attested the mutation in favour of Sunder on 12th of April, 1951. Sunder remained in possession of the land in suit till he sold it to the present appellants, Kanshi Ram and Hari Ram, on 31st of January, 1956, for a sum of Rs. 3,500/- under a registered sale deed.

3. Before the sale took place, a suit was brought by Karti and Muni on 27th of January 1956 against Sunder and one Kesho Ram, a mortgagee from Sunder, for possession of the suit land on the ground that they were the heirs and not Sunder, being the daughters of collaterals of Kundan Lal. That suit was decreed and the appeal preferred by Sunder was dismissed. In pursuance of the decree obtained by Karti and Muni, an execution application was made on 30th of August, 1956 against tha judgment-debtors, Sunder and Kesho Ram. Kanshi Ram and Hari Ram, who claimed to be in possession of the suit property as bona fide purchasers for value preferred objections asserting that their possession could not be disturbed.

It was also pleaded by them that the proceedings in the suit were collusive and the real object of Sunder and the plaintiffs was to deprive them of the valuable rights which they had acquired in the land. It was pleaded further that Sunder, in the suit which had been brought by Karti and Muni on 27th of January, 1956, did not put up the only defence which was available to him that he had become an owner of the property by virtue of the mutation deed, Exhibit O. 3, to which both Muni and Karti had been consenting parties.

4. The executing Court framed the following two issues which arose from the objections which had been preferred by Kanshi Ram and Hari Ram:-

(1) Whether the decree sought to be executed was competent in the suit which was filed in collusion with Sunder judgment-debtor and whether for that reason the principle of lis pendens is not applicable to the present proceedings as claimed?

(2) Whether the decree-holders are barred from dispossessing the objectors by their acts and conduct as claimed by the objectors?

On both these issues, the decision of the executing Court was adverse to the objectors who did not succeed even before the District Judge in appeal. Kanshi Ram and Hari Ram have now come in second appeal to this Court.

5. It has been urged by Mr. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the appellants, that full price having been paid for the suit property, they became bona fide transferees for value and are entitled to avail of the equitable principle of estoppel embodied in Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Secondly, it was alleged that the doctrine of lis pendens, as stated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, would not be applicable as the explanation added to it is not founded on principles of equity, justice and good conscience. Mr. Aggarwal urged that, in any event, there was collusion between Sunder, on one hand, and Karti and Muni, on the other, and for that reason the claim of the purchasers could not be defeated on the principle of lis pendens.

6. The first contention of the counsel is based on the mutation, Exhibit O. 3. It appears that on 12th of September 1950, Karti and Muni appeared before the Revenue Officer and stated that they "wanted" to surrender their rights in the land left by this niece Ishwar Devi in favour of her husband, Sunder. The Revenue Officer wa