JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, M. - Duli Chand, revisionist, had filed a suit for declaration in the court of S.D.O. Etawah, praying that he was the sole Sirdar of the land in suit. In the copy of the Khatauni filed along with the plaint, the defendant No. 3, Smt. Kiranta Devi, was recorded as the sole tenant of the disputed plot. Smt. Kiranta Devi and State of Uttar Pradesh filed separate written statements, denying the rights and title of the plaintiff in the disputed plot. On November 29, 1977 Anwar Singh filed an application for being impleaded in the suit on the ground that Smt. Kiranta Devi had sold the land in suit in his favour and his name had been mutated over the land on the basis of the sale deed. Though Smt. Kiranta Devi was recorded as a Sirdar of the disputed plot, she became its Bhumidhar after enforcement of U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977 with effect from January 28, 1977. Anwar Singh filed the original sale deed as well as a copy of the Khatauni showing that his name had been mutated in place of Smt. Kiranta Devi on the basis of the sale deed. The learned trial court ordered impleadment of Anwar Singh on February 4, 1978. 2. Against this order of impleadment, the plaintiff Duli Chand went up in revision. Shri R.R. Srivastava, learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad, was of the view that, as the transfer by Smt. Kiranta Devi in favour of Anwar Singh was made during the pendency of the suit without the permission of the court, the sale was unauthorised and, therefore, the impleadment of Anwar Singh was illegal, in view of Section 52, Transfer of Property Act. 3. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act lays during the pendency in the court of any suit in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to suit or proceeding so 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. The learned Additional Commissioner interpreted this section as prohibiting sale of an immovable property during the pending of a suit except with the permission of the court was obtained by Smt. Kiranta Devi for transferring the land, the learned Additional Commissioner held that the transfer was ineffective and could not pass any title to the transferee. The law of 'lis pendens' in an extension of the law of 'res judicata' and makes the adjudication binding on the parties themselves and on alienees from them after the decree. It means that if a person purchases any property which is subject-matter of a pending suit, he will be bound by the result of the suit even if he is not a party to the pending litigation. 4. The real question is whether a sale during the pendency of the suit is void of whether the transferee will have any right in the transferred property or not. In A.I.R. 1955 Mad. 219, it had been held that Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, imposes a perinal incapcity as far a transfer of the subject-matter of the pending litigation is concerned. The correct position of law is that a transfer 'pendente lite' by a party to suit or proceeding is to ipso facto void. It merely cannot affect the right of any other party of the suit under any decree or order that may be made in the suit or proceeding, and it is only voidable at the instance of such party. In other words, the doctrine of 'lis pendens' applies only to transfer and other dealings which are inconsistent with the rights dealings which are inconsistent with the rights declared by decrees or orders in the suit. 5. In A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 593, it was held as follows: "The effect of Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, is not to wipe out a sale pendente lite altogether but to subordinate it to the rights based on the decree in the suit. Between the parties to the transaction, however, it is perfectly valid and operates to vest the title of the transfer in the transferee. The words so as to effect the rights of any other party there to under the decree or order which may be made therein make it clear that the transfer is good except to the extent that it might conflict with rights decreed under the decree or order. The words so as to effect the rights of any other party there to under the decree or order which may be made therein make it clear that the transfer is good except to the extent that it might conflict with rights decreed under the decree or order. It is in this view that transfers pendente lite have been held to be valid and operative as between the parties thereto. Hence the contention that a transferor pendente lite must for purposes of Section 52 be treated as still retaining title to the properties cannot be accepted. In view of this ruling of the Supreme Court, the ruling of Madras High Court reported in A.I.R. 1955 Mad. 219 (supra) will not operate in favour of the revisionist. 6. A transfer of immovable property pending a suit in respect of it, is not void abinitio. It transfers valid rights to the transfer of and is perfectly valid as far as transferor and transferee are concerned. By virtue of this transfer, the rights of the transferor are extinguished and they are vested in the transferee. However, the doctrine of 'lis pendens' incorporated in Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, creates a fiction that inspite of such a transfer, which may be valid between the transferor and transferee, it will not operate to the detriment of the other litigating party to the suit, and it further means that the transferee of such a deed, whether impleaded as a party or not impleaded in the suit, will be bound by the decree against the transferor of the property. In this way, the doctrine of 'lis pendence' is an extension of the doctrine of res judicata. This is an equitable principle. 7. As a transfer pendente lite is not void abinitio and is valid between the transferor and transferee it cannot be said that because Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act the Transferor's rights still remain in the transferred land. By operation of law if the said transfer is valid, the rights of the vendor will certainly be extinguished. 8. Now, if we apply this principle to that present suit, the result will be that by transferring the land in suit to Anwar Singh, the defendant, Smt. Kiranta Devi, lost her rights in the disputed plot and that title vested in the transferee, Anwar Singh. 8. Now, if we apply this principle to that present suit, the result will be that by transferring the land in suit to Anwar Singh, the defendant, Smt. Kiranta Devi, lost her rights in the disputed plot and that title vested in the transferee, Anwar Singh. The name of Anwar Singh was also mutated in place of Smt. Kriranta Devi. We have already seen that inspite of pendency of suit, such a transfer was not void. It was inoperative so far as the ultimate rights and interest if any, of the plaintiff in this case were concerned, but for other matters the transfer was valid and had passed valid title to the transferee. In this context, the learned trial court passed order impleading Anwar Singh in the suit. Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C. also envisages assignment of title or interest during the pendency of a suit. It lays down that in cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may by leave of the court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. The order of the trail court impleading Anwar Singh cannot be deemed to be an order which was illegal or passed without jurisdiction. It was an order which could be legally passed by a court of law and hence even if such an order was to a certain extent improper, though I do not hold it to be so in this case, it cannot be interfered with in revision. I am of the view that the order of the learned trial court was not only legal but it was proper order because the name of the transferee had been mutated in place of the transferor, Smt. Kiranta Devi, who was recorded as the sole tenant of the land in suit. By being impleaded as a party, Anwar Singh can effectively watch his interest in the disputed plot over which his name has been mutated and in which now the transferor, Smt. Kiranta Devi, has got no interest or title whatsoever. 9. In these circumstances, I am unable to agree with the recommendation of the learned Addl. Commissioner. The revision filed by Duli Chand is accordingly dismissed with costs and Rs. 50/- as counsel's fee.