Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Namwar Singh and Sri Lalit Kumar, Advocates for appellants and Sri R.K. Pandey, Advocate for respondents.

2. The only substantial question of law which was formulated in this appeal after hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. is:

“Whether the sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs-appellants during pendency of suit, is void on the principle of lis pendens and if so, whether they are entitled to be substituted?”

3. It is evident from record that Original Suit No. 115 of 1969 instituted by Sri Haji Bashir Ahmad (since deceased and substituted by his legal heirs) resulted in a compromise decree as a result whereof defendant-vendor, who executed sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs, in respect to property in dispute, became incompetent to possess any right over the said property and hence could not have conferred title upon plaintiffs. The present plaintiffs-appellants are purchaser of disputed property during pendency of the aforesaid suit.

4. The present proceedings, however, have arisen from a subsequent Original Suit No. 184 of 1996 instituted by plaintiffs-appellants in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bulandshahar. The plaint case s