The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant failed to prove sub-tenancy and acquisition of Bhumiswami rights under the M. P. Land Revenue Code, and the sale deed executed during the restitution proceedings was not affected by the doctrine of lis pendens.

( 1 ) THE appellant/defendant No. 1 Gowardhan has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 5-A/74 on 11-12-1978 confirming the decree granted by the trial Court decreeing the suit of the Respondent/plaintiff Ghasiram and others vide judgment and decree dated 23-2-1974 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 21-A/71.

( 2 ) THIS second appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law :- (1) Whether the Court below erred in holding that Daula as the predecessor-in-title of the appellant Gowardhan was not the sub-tenant of Lachhibai, Pannibai through whom the respondent Ghasiram claimed title to the suit land? (2) Whether the sale effected by Lachhibai and the legal representatives of Pannibai in favour of respondent Ghasiram is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens? (3) Whether the appellant was not given proper opportunity to lead evidence ?"

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, the following facts, in brief, are not in dispute that the suit land originally belonged to Lachhibai and Pannibai. The defendant No. 5 Rughnathsingh was legal representative of deceased Pannibai. Lachhibai and Pannibai instituted a case under Section 326 of Kanoon Mal Gwalior for recovery of possession of those lands from one Daula on the allegations that the said Daula had taken forcible possession of the suit lands. During the pendency of said case, Lachhibai and Pannibai sought an interim possession under Section 328 of Kanoon Mal Gwalior from Daula on 20-4-1949 in pursuance of the order of Revenue Court dated 31-5-1948. Against that order Daula had filed a revision and had died during the pendency of the said revision. Gowardhan, appellant/defendant No. 1 as legal representative of said Daula prosecuted the said revision but ultimately that revision was dismissed. The main case under Section 326 of Kanoon Mal Gwalior instituted by Lachhibai and Pannibai was dismissed in default on 7-7-1953 but Lachhibai and Pannibai continued to remain in possession of the lands in suit as they had obtained interim possession during the pendency of that case. Thereafter on 14-4-1954 appellant Gowardhan instituted proceedings for restitution and on 17-8-1966 the Collector directed the restitution of possession in favour of Gowardhan and on 19-1-1967 appellant Gowardhan obtained possession of land in suit.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of restitution proceedings between 14-4-1954 and 19-1-1967, two events took place. The first was the defendants No. 2 to 4, who are legal representatives of Lachhibai, and defendant No. 5, who is legal representative of Pannibai, executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiff Ghasiram on 23-5-1958 and had obtained possession in pursuance of the registered sale deed and as such he remained in possession till 19-1-1967 while Gowardhan obtained possession in the restitution proceedings. Thereafter defendants No. 2 to 5 filed a civil suit against appellant/defendant No. 1 Gowardhan for declaration of title. That suit was compromised on 11/12-1-1967 and in the said compromise defendants No. 2 to 5 conceded that Daula was initially sub-tenant and as such his legal representative Gowardhan had acquired Bhumiswami right on coming in force of M. P. Land Revenue Code.

( 5 ) THE present suit has been filed on 1-5-1967 by Respondent/plaintiff Ghasiram. His allegation is that he acquired title by obtaining registered sale-deed dated 23-5-1958 from defendants No. 2 to 5 and, therefore, the defendant No. 1 Gowardhan has no right, title or interest in the land in suit. He pleaded that compromise which took place between defendants No. 2 to 5 and defendant No. 1 in civil suit on 11/12-1-1967 was a collusive one and has been made with a view to defeat the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. The appellant/defendant denied the execution o