G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned trial Judge whereby he dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) FACTS first: Banta Singh executed an agreement of sale dated June 18,1982 in favour of Tehal Singh with respect to the suit property. Banta Singh did not fulfill his part of the agreement and did not execute the sale deed in favour of Tehal Singh. The later filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated June 18,1982, which was decreed by the Subordinate Judge on May 21, 1984. In the decree it was specifically stipulated that the vendee would deposit the balance sale price within 30 days from the date of the decree. The vendor preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated May 21, 1984, on July 16, 1984, which was dismissed by the first appellate Court on December 12, 1985. During the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge, Banta Singh sold the property in dispute to the petitioner vide deed dated November 20,1984. When the decree holders were making attempt to get possession of the land decreed in their favour objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by the present petitioners (subsequent vendees). The objections have been dismissed by the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent vendees are bona fide purchasers are value and consideration and they are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel is not correct in his submission. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, envisages that the property subject matter of the suit cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedings so affect the right of any other person thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein. Section 52 of the said Act specifically bars the transfer of the property during the pendency of the suit. The transfer being in breach of the mandatory provisions of the statute is bad in law. No enforceable right accrued to the subsequent vendees. The objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the subsequent vendees were misconceived. I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned executing Court. The revision petition is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.;