MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the arguments of learned counsel on both sides. ( 2 ) THIS revision arises from the judgment and order dated 4-4-1988 of the land reforms appellate authority, chickmagalur district, chickmagalur made in lra No. 82 of 1987 on its file conferring occupancy right on respondent 2-kempirangaiah in respect of,ft acre of the agricultural land in sy. No. 4 of rangenahalli, lakkavalli hobli, tarikere taluk in chickmagalur district by setting aside the order dated 30-4-1987 of the land tribunal, tarikere, made in lrt No. 7 of 1976-77 rejecting respondent 2's application in form No. 7 which was filed for grant of occupancy right in respect of the said 1 acre as also another acre of the land in the same survey number. ( 3 ) CERTAIN undisputed facts emerging from the material on record are as stated hereinbelow. One t. Rangaiah was the owner of the said 2 acres of the land in sy. No. 4 of rangenahalli village in tarikere taluk of chickmagalur district. On 6-5-1966 he entered into an agreement with petitioner Smt. Siddarajamma to sell the said land to her for valuable consideration. When he was not willing to execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner in terms of the said agreement, the suit in o. s. No. 20 of 1968 for specific performance was filed on 17-1-1968 by the petitioner against him for a decree directing him to execute the sale deed in respect of the said land in performance of his part of the said agreement. That suit was filed in competent court of the munsiff at tarikere. Ultimately, it was decreed as prayed on 10-1-1969 by the trial court. ( 4 ) IN the meantime, on 15-4-1968 during pendency of the said suit, the said t. Rangaiah, who was defendant in the suit, sold 1 acre of the said land to respondent 3-t. r. appiyamma under a registered sale deed, ( 5 ) PETITIONER, who was the decree-holder in the said o. s. No. 20 of 1968, took out execution of the decree against defendant. Since he was dead by then his legal representatives were proceeded against. The sale deed was executed by them on 21-4-1977 towards satisfaction of the said decree during execution proceeding and that on 10-8-1977 petitioner took possession of said 2 acres through the executing court. Since he was dead by then his legal representatives were proceeded against. The sale deed was executed by them on 21-4-1977 towards satisfaction of the said decree during execution proceeding and that on 10-8-1977 petitioner took possession of said 2 acres through the executing court. ( 6 ) IN the meanwhile, on 27-12-1976, application in form No. 7 under Section 48-a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the act' for short) was filed before the land tribunal by respondent 2-kempiran gaiah for grant of occupancy right with respect to the said 2 acres of the land claiming to be the tenant thereof under respondent 3-Smt. T. r. appiyamma and respondent 4-m. n. rajashekaraiah. ( 7 ) THE case of tenancy pleaded by him in his said application was that he was cultivating the said two acres from 1971-72 as a tenant under respondent 3. It appears from the impugned judgment and the said order of tribunal that subsequently respondent 2-kempaiah took she stand before the tribunal that he was cultivating one acre of the said land as a tenant under respondent 3 and another one acre thereof was being cultivated by him as a tenant under respondent 4-n. m. rajashekaraiah. In his evidence given before the tribunal on 29-11-1986 he has stated that he was cultivating the said two acres of land as a tenant since 1968 under respondent 3 and respondent 4. Respondent 3-appiyamma was also examined for him in the tribunal who has supported the case of respondent 2. ( 8 ) THE application of respondent 2 before the land tribunal was opposed by the petitioner-siddarajamma. ( 9 ) ON the basis of material available to the land tribunal it passed the order on 27-8-1977 rejecting the claim. The said order of the land tribunal was challenged by both petitioner and respondent 2 before this court in W. P. No. 8952 of 1977 and W. P. No. 12993 of 1977 respectively. Both the said writ petitions were allowed and the matter was remanded to the land tribunal with a direction to dispose afresh according to law. Then a fresh order dated 30-4-1987 was passed by the land tribunal allowing respondent 2's application and conferring occupancy right on mm with respect to said 2 acres land. Both the said writ petitions were allowed and the matter was remanded to the land tribunal with a direction to dispose afresh according to law. Then a fresh order dated 30-4-1987 was passed by the land tribunal allowing respondent 2's application and conferring occupancy right on mm with respect to said 2 acres land. Petitioner challenged the same before the land reforms appellate authority, chickmagalur on the main grounds, inter alia, that the said sale of one acre made by its owner t. Rangaiah in favour of respondent 3-appiyamma on 15-4-1968 was an invalid sale as it was hit by the principle of lis pendens in that it was transferred during pendency of the petitioner's said suit in o. s. No. 20 of 1968 and that respondent 4-rajashekaraiah being not the owner of any portion of the said two acres of land he could not have created any lease in favour of respondent 2 in respect of one acre thereof as claimed by him. ( 10 ) ON reconsideration of the material available on record, the land reforms appellate authority negatived the contention of the petitioner, who was appellant before it, that the sale of one acre of the said land by rangaiah on 15-4-1968 in favour of respondent 3-appiyamma was hit by doctrine of us pendens, and, therefore, the appellate authority opined that it was a valid sale and in her capacity as the rightful owner thereof she had created lawful tenancy in favour of respondent 2 with respect to one acre of land purchased by her. As regards another acre out of the said two acres of the land, the objection of the petitioner was upheld by the appellate authority since there was not an iota of material on record showing that respondent 4 had any manner of right or interest in or over the said land. Therefore, the claim of respondent 2 to this one acre of land was rejected by appellate authority. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 4-4-1987 has been passed by it. ( 11 ) THE judgment of the land reforms appellate authority rejecting respondent 2's claim to the tenancy in respect of 1 acre of land under respondent 4 has not been challenged by him. As a result this portion of judgment has become final. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 4-4-1987 has been passed by it. ( 11 ) THE judgment of the land reforms appellate authority rejecting respondent 2's claim to the tenancy in respect of 1 acre of land under respondent 4 has not been challenged by him. As a result this portion of judgment has become final. Therefore, the controversy between the parlies now revolves around only one acre of land in respect of which occupancy right has been granted by the appellate authority to respondent 2 rejecting the contention of petitioner that respondent 3 was not the lawful owner thereof and, therefore, she could not have created lawful tenancy in respondent 2js favour because of the operation of the principle of us pendens. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on both sides canvassed their respective arguments before me. ( 13 ) INDISPUTABLY, one acre of the said land was purchased by respondent 3-appiyamma during the pendency of the said o. s. No. 20 of 1968 from its owner rangaiah who was a defendant in the said suit. The purchased land was part and parcel of the land which was the subject of the dispute between the parties in o. s. No. 20 of 1968. The said suit has been decreed in petitioner's favour on 10-1-1969. Therefore, the material point for decision is whether the lower appellate authority is legally justified in its conclusion that the transfer of one acre of the suit land in o. s. No. 20 of 1968 by the defendant in favour of respondent 3-t. r. appiyamma during the pendency of the suit is not hit by principle of us pendens. Petitioner's learned counsel's argument was that the principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of Transfer Of Property Act squarely applies to the said sale transaction and the authority below has patently erred in its negative conclusion. Petitioner's learned counsel's argument was that the principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of Transfer Of Property Act squarely applies to the said sale transaction and the authority below has patently erred in its negative conclusion. On the contrary, it was maintained by learned counsel for respondent 2 that the Rule of lis pendens was not attracted to the sale transaction dated 15-4-1968 between the defendant in o. s. no, 20 of 1968 and respondent 3 because the decree passed in o. s. No. 20 of 1968 is an ex parte decree; that it was a collusive decree and that the Provisions of Transfer Of Property Act are not applicable to the tenancy proceedings before the land tribunal by virtue of Section 138 read with Section 132 (2) af the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1971. ( 14 ) LET me deal with the objection of respondent 2's learned counsel Sri G. A. Sreekante gowda as to the applicability or otherwise of Provisions of Transfer Of Property Act to the enquiry proceedings relating to the tenancy claims before the land tribunal. Section 138 of the Land Reforms Act runs thus:"138. act to prevail over other enactments. This act and any Rule, order or notification made or issued thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment with respect to matters enumerated in list ii and list iii of the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such other enactment. "section 132 reads:"1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. No order of the deputy commissioner, an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the assistant commissioner, the prescribed authority under Section 83, the tribunal, the tahsildar, the Karnataka appellate tribunal, or the state government, made under this act shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court". Chapter v of the Transfer Of Property Act deals with the leases of the immoveable property. Chapter v of the Transfer Of Property Act deals with the leases of the immoveable property. A combined reading of Section 138 and sub-section (2) of Section 132 brings this legal position to the fore that the Provisions Contained in Chapter v are Made Applicable to the tenancies and leases of the lands to which the act applies insofar as they are not inconsistent with its Provisions and also that the Provisions of this Act, any Rule made thereunder, order or notification shall have the overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Transfer Of Property Act or any other enactment with respect to the matters enumerated in list ii and list iii of the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such other enactment. In other words such of the Provisions of the Transfer Of Property Act which are not inconsistent with the Provisions of the Land Reforms Act are not barred from their applicability to the matters and proceedings covered under the Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sreekante gowda that operation of all the Provisions of the Transfer Of Property Act except those which are stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 3, do not apply to the transactions or the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act does not carry any legal substance and, therefore, it is rejected. In that view of the legal position, Section 52 of the Transfer Of Property Act very much operates against alienation of agricultural land which is the subject of tenancy claim by any person before the land tribunal. Therefore, what is required to be seen now is whether the sale of one acre of the land by its owner rangaiah in favour of respondent 3-appiyamma made on 15-4-1968 was hit by the Provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer Of Property Act or not by reason of pendency of the said suit i. e. , o. s. No. 20 of 1968. ( 15 ) SECTION 52 of the Transfer Of Property Act is excerpted below:"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto. ( 15 ) SECTION 52 of the Transfer Of Property Act is excerpted below:"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto. 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 directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedings so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under the decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose". a plain reading of this provision makes it clear that any party to a pending suit or proceeding which is not collusive is prohibited from transferring any right to an immoveable property which is directly and specifically in question and is the subject of such suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereof which may be acquired by him under any decree or order ultimately passed or made therein. Explanation to Section 52 makes it further clear that pendency of a suit or proceeding shall deem to commence from the date of presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction and to continue until the suit or proceeding had been disposed of by a final decree or order and till complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order. Thus Section 52 creates a clear bar on transfer of any immoveable property which is the subject of a suit proceeding by any party thereto so as to affect the right of the other party which he may ultimately acquire under a decree. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the said one acre of the land which was the subject-matter of o. s. No. 20 of 1968 between the petitioner and rangaiah who was the owner thereof, was purchased during the pendency of the said suit and the petitioner's suit for specific performance against rangaiah had been decreed subsequently; and in execution of the said decree, petitioner got the sale deed executed through court in respect of whole of the two acres of the said land. So, it legally follows that the said sale of 1 acre in respondent 3'a favour made on 16-4-1968 by defendant rangaiah was hit by the Provisions of Section 52 and, therefore, it was an invalid sale. The contrary view taken by the lower appellate authority is, therefore, patently illegal and unsustainable. As a logical corollary it further follows that respondent 3-appiyamma having not acquired any legal right over the said land, she was not the original owner thereof and as such she could not have created lawful tenancy with respect thereof in favour of respondent 2 within the meaning of Section 105 of the Transfer Of Property Act. As such even assuming that respondent 2 was inducted in the said one acre of the land by respondent 3 for the purpose of its cultivation, the former cannot claim to be the tenant thereof, for the simple reason that appiyamma had no right to create the lease in his favour and, therefore, he cannot be held as a lawful tenant of the said 1 acre in the eye of law. This court has, in Sanjeevaiah v Land Tribunal, Gubbi and others , which is referred to by lower appellate authority in its impugned judgment has held:"in other words mere possession of a land by a person in itself will not create any right on such person to claim occupancy rights under the Provisions of the act inasmuch as it is for him to show further that he was in lawful and rightful possession of the land held by him as a tenant under the law". in the light of this pronouncement of this court and in the circumstances stated and discussed above, respondent 2 cannot be held cultivating the said 1 acre of land as a tenant under respondent 3 who had no right whatsoever of creating tenancy in his favour with respect thereto. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the lower appellate authority is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the lower appellate authority dated 4-4-1988 made in lra No. 82 of 1987 and the impugned order of the land tribunal made in lrt No. 7 of 1976-77, dated 30-4-1987 are set aside. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .