Judgment :- 1. O.S. 174 of 1102 of the Sub Court, Kottayam was a suit on a hypothecation bond. The suit was decreed as early as 1108 M.E. Decree-holders purchased the suit properties in court auction on 13th Karkkitakom 1120. This right was taken assignment of by the 4th plaintiff who got delivery of the properties on 26th June 1961. Meanwhile, on 4th Chingom 1121, 15th defendant had filed a petition to set aside the sale under 0.21, R.90 It was subsequent to this that the 4th plaintiff had taken assignment of the sale right from the decree-holders 2 and 3 on 18th Midhunam 1121. He contested the application to set aside the sale filed by 15th defendant. The sale was finally confirmed on 18th July 1958. 2. By that time the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act Act 31 of 1958 had come into force on 14th July 1958. 15th defendant filed an application under S.22 (3) of the Act to set aside the sale which was allowed. Then a petition was filed by 15th defendant for re-delivery of properties, which as stated earlier had been taken delivery of by 4th plaintiff on 26th June 1961. The court ordered redelivery with mesne profits on 11th February 1964. 4th plaintiff took up the matter in appeal to the High Court as A. S.97/64. The appeal was dismissed on 25th May 1965. 3. 15th defendant had died on 26th August 1963 and defendants 36 and 37 were impleaded as his legal representatives. Subsequently, 37th defendant also died. Defendants 38 to 41 are his legal representatives. 4. 36th defendant had been appointed as Receiver of the properties. He filed a. report in court stating that he had taken possession of the properties. According to the present appellants the 4th plaintiff who had taken delivery of the properties on 26th June 1961 had given the same to the appellants for cultivation under varam arrangements and thereafter they were actually cultivating the properties. They are also alleged to have filed a claim petition before the Receiver. Subsequently, 36th defendant surrendered the Receiver order to court which then appointed 4th respondent, to this appeal, as Receiver. He also filed a report to the court stating that he has taken possession of the properties. They are also alleged to have filed a claim petition before the Receiver. Subsequently, 36th defendant surrendered the Receiver order to court which then appointed 4th respondent, to this appeal, as Receiver. He also filed a report to the court stating that he has taken possession of the properties. The appellants in this appeal filed E. A. 509/71 under 0.40, R.1(2) C.P.C., praying that they may not be dispossessed by the Receiver on the ground that they are varamdars of the property entitled to fixity of tenure under the Land Reforms Act Act 1 of 1964. They disputed the Receiver's report of his having taken possession of the property. Pending the disposal of this application the court below allowed these persons to cultivate the properties under the Receiver on certain specified terms. The lower court finally dismissed the appellant's petition holding that they cannot claim benefit under the varam arrangement as it was vitiated by lis pendens. The learned Sub Judge accepted the contention raised by the 36th defendant that when the court sale was set aside, in spite of delivery of property to 4th plaintiff as per the sale, the lis revives from the date of delivery itself. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended before us that the finding of the court below is wrong in law because on the date of grant of varam such grant would not amount to transfer of any interest in property or dealing with the property so as to attract the provisions of S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Before coming into force of Act 1 of 1964, a varamdar had no possession of the land which he cultivated and his legal character is of a licensee. Though the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act Act 1 of 1957 -gave to the then existing varamdars the right to continue to cultivate the land on the same terms and conditions under which they were cultivating the land at the commencement of the Act, that Act clearly recognised that a varamdar has no possession and had only got a right to cultivate. The definition of the term varamdar in that Act also points out the correct legal position, namely, that it is the owner or other person with whom the varamdar engages that is in lawful possession of the land and that the only right which the varamdar gets under . The definition of the term varamdar in that Act also points out the correct legal position, namely, that it is the owner or other person with whom the varamdar engages that is in lawful possession of the land and that the only right which the varamdar gets under . the agreement is the right to cultivate the land and share the produce. This position continued till the Land Reforms Act Act 1 of 1964 came into force which converted the varamdars into tenants. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the subsequent statutory inroad made into the status of varamdars cannot be taken note Of in considering the question whether creation of a tvaram before Act 1 of 1964 could be held to be a transfer of property or dealing with property within the scope of S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. It is no doubt true that prior to Act 1 of 1964 a varamdar has no possession and no interest in the land. The utmost that he could have claimed is the right of a licensee coupled with a grant. See Kunhayyappan v. Chathu (IX Cochin L. R.418), Alam v. State 1959 KLT. 885 and Dudachan v. Sreenivasa Kini 1969 KLT. 915. 7. However, that does not mean that granting the right to cultivate on Varam arrangement will not amount to 'dealing' with property so as to attract the provisions of S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Making arrangements for cultivation of property is certainly dealing with property. In the literal sense to act regarding a thing, would be a 'dealing' with the thing. 'To act toward a person or regarding a thing', is one of the meanings given to the word'deal' in Webster Third New International Dictionary which would be appropriate in the context. Making arrangements for cultivation of property is certainly dealing with property. In the literal sense to act regarding a thing, would be a 'dealing' with the thing. 'To act toward a person or regarding a thing', is one of the meanings given to the word'deal' in Webster Third New International Dictionary which would be appropriate in the context. S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as follows: "During the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directed and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose". From the section itself it is clear that dealing with property need not be a transfer of property or any interest therein as such. A contract of sale has been held to be within the ambit of the phrase 'otherwise dealt with'. See Kubra Bibi v. Khudaijan Bibi 38 I.C. 582. In Ismail v. Hussain AIR. 1970 All. 648 and in Narain Singh v. Imam Din AIR. 1934 Lahore 978, it had been held that S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable in respect of erection of buildings on property which forms the subject matter of litigation. S.52 has also been held to be applicable to a transaction of handing over of possession as such of disputed property. Dhassing v. Sushila Bai AIR. 1968 M.P. 229. 8. Entering into a varam arrangement in respect of a property before Act 1 of 1964 being, giving of a licence coupled with a grant and also being a transaction changing in a way the mode of enjoyment of the property would, according to us, be hit by lis pendens. We cannot consider the transaction isolated from the circumstances in which it was made. The varam arrangement was made after 26th June 1961 when it was common knowledge that varamdars were going to be equated with tenants and thus getting fixity of tenure. We cannot consider the transaction isolated from the circumstances in which it was made. The varam arrangement was made after 26th June 1961 when it was common knowledge that varamdars were going to be equated with tenants and thus getting fixity of tenure. Therefore, we see no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.