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 set up by plaintiffs is that property in dispute was purchased by plaintiffs from Smt. Saeedan, widow of Allah Diya, by sale-deed dated 21.9.1981. Prior thereto, one Haji Bashir Ahmad, instituted Suit No. 115 of 1969 for specific performance on the basis of a contract for sale dated 7.6.1966. Smt. Saeedan instead of executing sale-deed in favour of Sri Haji Bashir Ahmad, proceeded to execute a sale-deed in favour of Smt. Ramsakhi, Smt. Santosh Devi and Smt. Usha Devi which was illegal. These subsequent purchasers were also impleaded as defendant Nos. 3 to 5 in Suit No. 115 of 1969. Two more persons, namely, Alimuddin and Ramzani were also impleaded as defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in the aforesaid suit. The suit was contested by Smt. Saeedan alleging that she had only 1/3rd share in the disputed property while 2/3rd share belong to defendant Nos. 6 and 7.

5. The suit was decreed by Trial Court, i.e., Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahar vide judgment and decree dated 13.1.1972, whereagainst Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1972 was filed by Alimuddin and Ramzani, the defendant Nos. 6 and 7, in the aforesaid suit. This appeal was allowed on 22.8.1976. This Court reversed Trial Court’s decree and directed for deciding suit again. Thereagainst Sri Haji Bashir Ahmad preferred Appeal No. 734 of 1978 before Apex Court which was decided on 3.4.1978 whereby it was held that the direction of High Court while remanding matter was not to decide the entire suit afresh but the intention was that Trial Court shall first determine share of Smt. Saeedan and thereafter shall pass decree for specific performance to that extent. Consequently, five additional issues were framed in the Trial Court on 20.7.1982 whereby issue No. 8 was regarding share of Smt. Saeedan in the disputed property. While the matter was pending, Smt. Saeedan executed further sale-deed in respect of disputed property on 21.9.1981 in favour of plaintiffs-appellants in the present case. These appellants moved an Application No. 139A under Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment as defendants in Original Suit No. 115 of 1969. In the meantime, Smt. Saeedan, Alimuddin and Ramjani also died hence their legal heirs were brought on record. The application seeking impleadment preferred by present appellants was rejected by Trial Court by order dated 26.2.1996, whereagainst the present appellants preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1996 which was also dismissed by Third Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar vide order dated 28.7.1998. Thereagainst the present appellants came to this Court in Second Appeal No. 1325 of 1998 but the same was also dismissed by vide judgement dated 24.11.1999.

6. In the meantime the Original Suit No. 115 of 1969, it appears, that, after rejecting present appellants’ application for implea