( 1 ) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Bhargava J. dismissing an appeal preferred by the present appellants against an order passed by the additional District Judge. Hoshangabad, in execution proceedings of a decree for possession of certain lands in favour of the respondent Sushilabai and against the other two respondents Thakurlal and Nanhelal.

( 2 ) THE material facts are that one Ayodhyabai held some sir fields situated in mauza Mangrul, district Hoshangabad, as an occupancy tenant. After her death the fields were inherited bv Baliram as the next reversionary heir. On 24th July 1944 Baliram and his wife Parvatibai executed a deed of gift in respect of the fields in favour of their minor daughter, the respondent Sushilabai. On 13th April 1945 baliram and his wife, acting on behalf of Sushilabai executed a surrender deed in favour of the respondents Thakurlal and Nanhelal.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY. Baliram and Sushilabai, through her next friend Badriprasad, filed a suit against Thakurlal, Nanhelal and Parvatibai for declaration that the surrender effected in favour of Thakurlal and Nanhelal was void and not binding on sushilabai and for a decree against Thakurlal and Nanhelal for delivery of possession of the fields to Sushilabai. In that suit Parvatibai was made a pro forma defendant. It was alleged as against her that she was a party to the bogus and illegal surrender dead and acted against the interest of the minor Sushilabai as well as that of Baliram. The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, who tried the suit, passed a decree on 3rd October 1950 against Thakurlal and nanhelal holding that Sushilabai was entitled to get Rs. 600/- as mesne profits from Thakurlal and Nanhelal and liable to refund Rs. 700 to them for the benefits received and that, therefore, on payment of Rs. 100 to Thakurlal and Nanhelal, they, that is Thakurlal and Nanhelal, shall deliver possession to Sushilabai of the occupancy fields. Thakurlal and Nanhelal then preferred an appeal in this Court. In that appeal Parvatibai was not impleaded as a respondent; nor did she join thakurlal and Nanhelal as an appellant. In appeal, a Division Bench of this Court on 19th April 1957 set aside only the direction of the trial Court with regard to payment of Rs. 600 as mesne profits by Thakurlal and Nanhelal to Sushilabai and thus modified the decree passed by the Additional District Judge by directing that on payment of Rs. 700 by Sushilabai to Thakurlal and Nanhelal, they shall deliver possession of the fields to her.

( 4 ) IN execution proceedings of the decree, Sushilabai sought delivery of possession of the fields from the judgment-debtors Thakurlal and Nanhelal and from the transferees of the fields during the pendency of the civil suit filed by her. The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, rejected the objection of the present appellant-transferees that the decree passed in favour of Sushilabai for possession of the fields could not be enforced against them and they were under no obligation to deliver possession of the fields covered by the decree. Thereupon, they filed an appeal in this court which was heard and dismissed by Bhargava J.

( 5 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, as before us, the appeal was pressed only in regard to the claim of the appellant Onkarsingh to hold possession of the field bearing khasra No. 85 included in the decree passed in favour of Sushilabai and against Thakurlal and Nanhelal. The appellant Onkarsingh claimed that khasra No. 85 was sold to him by Parvatibai on 3rd September 1956, that since then he was in possession of the field and he was not bound by the decree obtained by sushilabai against Thakurlal and Nanhelal; and that no decree was passed against parvatibai. his vendor, in the suit filed by Sushilabai.

( 6 ) THIS objection of Onkarsingh was rejected by the executing Court holding that the transfer in his favour made by Parvatibai was affected by the doctrine of lis pendens