JUDGMENT P.K. Shamsuddin, J. 1. The petitioner in E A. No. 60 of 1977 in O.S. No. 169 of 1955 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Alleppy is the appellant. 2. The above E.A. was filed under O.21 R.99 and 100 of the Code of CivilProcedure, for redelivery of the petition schedule property. Petitioner wasdispossessed of the petition schedule property by delivery in execution of adecree in O.S. No. 169/55. According to the petitioner, he purchased thepetition schedule property with an extent of 41 cents under Ext. A1 sale deeddated 23-10-1967 from M/s. G.L Kilikar, Cochin, a partnership firm. M/s. G.L.Kilikar, Cochin purchased, the property in court auction in execution of thedecree obtained by them in O.S. No. 570 of 1954 on the file of the Munsiff'sCourt, Vaikom against the 3rd respondent herein. Pursuant to the courtauction, in O. S. No. 570 of 1954, M/s. G. L. Kilikar took delivery of theproperty through court on 3-8-1956 and they were in possession andenjoyment of the same. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the property fromM/s. G. L. Kilikar under Ext. A1. Since the petitioner was employed under theCentral Government, he entrusted the management of the property withNaduvathul Islam Society, a registered Cooperative Society and the saidSociety was taking usufructs on his behalf. While so, the 1st respondentherein purchased the property in an auction sale in execution of the decree inO. S. No. 169 of 1955 obtained by the 2nd respondent. 3. In the objection filed by the Ist respondent, he contended that neither thepetitioner nor his predecessor M/s. G. L. Kilikar had right in the property, that itwas after O. S. No. 169 of 1955 was filed, the attachment and saleproceedings in O. S. No. 570 of 1954 of the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom tookplace and that the above proceedings do not affect the sale and delivery inexecution of the charged decree in O. S. No. 169 of 1955 as thoseproceedings were hit by principle of lis pendens. 4. 4. The lower court held that as the decree in O.S. No. 169 of 1955 is passedin a suit on mortgage and is a charged decree and as it was subsequent to theinstitution of that suit, that the court sale and delivery proceedings in O. S. No.570 of 1954 took place, the proceedings in O. S. No. 570/1954 were hit by lispendens and that in the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to getredelivery of the property which was taken delivery by the 1st respondentpursuant to the auction purchase in O.S. No. 169 of 1955. Aggrieved by theorder of the lower court, this E. F. A. has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the doctrine of lispendens is not applicable to the facts of the case, that the appellant was abona fide purchaser for valid consideration and that in the circumstances, theorder of the court below is unsustainable. 6. In order to appreciate the respective contentions raised by the parties, it isnecessary to mention a few facts. O. S. No. 570 of 1954 was filed on20-10-1954. It was decreed on 7-3-1955. There was an interim order ofattachment effected on 1-1-1955 pending trial of the suit. In execution ofdecree, there was a court sale and the property was purchased by M/s. G. L.Kilikar, the plaintiff in that suit. The appellant purchased the plaint scheduleproperty from M/s. G. L. Kilikar on 23-10-1967. The decree in O.S. No. 169 of1955 would show that it was a charged decree based on a 'pattuvaravupanayadharam' executed by the 3rd respondent and others in favour of the2nd respondent, decree holder. O.S. No. 169 of 1955 was filed on 12-9-1955and the decree was passed on 15-12-1955. In execution of the decree, thecourt sale was effected on 11-9-1975 and delivery was effected on 19-1-1977.The appellant filed the above E.A. on 24-1-1977 for redelivery. 7. There is a catena of authorities which took the view that though S.52 of theTransfer of Property Act does not apply in terms to involuntary sales, such as court auction sale, the principles of lis pendens would apply to such alienations as well. 8. 7. There is a catena of authorities which took the view that though S.52 of theTransfer of Property Act does not apply in terms to involuntary sales, such as court auction sale, the principles of lis pendens would apply to such alienations as well. 8. The Travancore - Cochin High Court considered this question in Thommanthony Madachi v. Parvathi Lekshmi (ILR 1950 TC 636) and held that:- "A court sale in execution of a money decree held subsequent to the institutionof a mortgage suit is vitiated by the rule of lis pendens. This is so even if theproperty had been attached before the institution of the mortgage suit." This is the view taken in Bellankonda Subbaiah v. Jetti Kotamma and others( AIR 1945 Mad. 222 ), N Natarajan Achary v. K. P. Rajappan Pillai (1970 KLR582), Govinda Marar v. Sivarama Kurup (AIR 1972 Kerala 68). Madhavan v.Kartha Swamy (1980 KLT (SN) 98) and Varkey Varkey v. N. M. Kurian (AIR1982 Kerala 222). 9. The question was considered by the Supreme Court in Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishnakumar Nag ( AIR 1967 SC 1440 ). The court held that: "It is true that S.52 of the T.P. Act strictly speaking does not apply toinvoluntary alienations, such as court sales, but it is well established thatprinciple of lis pendens applies to such alienations also," This position has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Lal v. Sheonarain & others ( AIR 1970 SC 1717 ). 10. In view of the principles enunciated in the above decisions, it has to beheld that the court sale and delivery in O. S. No 570 of 1954 is hit by S.52 ofthe Transfer of Property Act and that therefore the delivery taken in executionof the decree in O. S. No. 169 of 1955 which is charged decree cannot beaffected by the sale in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 570 of 1954 andthe delivery effected therein. It follows that the appellant who is a transfereefrom the auction purchaser in O. S. No. 570 of 1954 is not entitled toredelivery. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.