The appellant, in the suit, inter alia, raised a plea that he was a bonafide purchaser for value, whereas the case of Udham Kaur was that as the properties were purchased during pendency of the suit, the same was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, as envisaged under Section 52 of the Act.
Harcharan Singh, the original Defendant No.1, allegedly transferred some properties in favour of his wife Udham Kaur in lieu of maintenance pursuant to a companypromise entered into by and between them.
She claimed herself to be the absolute owner thereof in terms of Section 14 1 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The said companytention of the respondent was number accepted by the learned Trial Judge as also by the First Appellate Court holding that the transaction was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
She filed a suit against her husband Harcharan Singh for a declaration that she was the owner in possession of the suit land.
The learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that as she had been in possession of the property in lieu of maintenance, she was entitled to enjoy the fruits thereof only during her life time.
Indisputably, during pendency of the said suit, Harcharan Singh sold the said land to the respondent herein by a deed of sale dated 17.3.1982 and he had been given possession thereof.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst and the Appellate Court declared her to be the full owner in possession of the suit land.
having regard to the death of Udham Kaur, the properties devolved upon the appellant herein as also on Harcharan Singh in equal shares and, thus, he should be declared to be the owner of the lands in terms of Sections 41 and 43 of the Act.
Another suit was filed by Udham Kaur.
In the Second Appeal, one additional ground was taken by him, viz.,
Appellant is, thus, before us.
