Judgment :- 1. This Appeal at the instance of original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge S.D., Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 575 / 2006 whereby the suit for ejectment and vacant possession filed by her, was dismissed. 2. Facts briefly are: Suit plot No.253 in CRS III Scheme NIT Middle Precinct, Ward No.24, District Nagpur, admeasuring 1500 sq.ft. was allotted on renewable leasehold rights to Tulsabai Mahagu Khobragade and Dattatraya Mahagu Khobgrade, on 24.5.1996 by Nagpur Improvement Trust. Mahagu expired on 13.3.1975 leaving his legal heirs wife Tulsabai and son Dattatraya. Tulsabai expired on 12.7.1998 leaving behind her sole heir Dattatraya Mahagu Khobragade to inherit all the rights in suit property. The plaintiff purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/on 17.9.1998 after Dattatraya obtained consent from Nagpur Improvement Trust ( in short “ NIT”) for transfer in favour of the plaintiff. 3. During life time of Mahagu, he had permitted Sitaram Khobragade to use and occupy temporary structure 3000 st.ft. without any occupation charges. In 1997, Regular Civil Suit No. 902/1997 was filed by Mahagu and two others vs. Dattatraya and two others which was dismissed with cost. The dismissal was challenged in Regular Civil Appeal No. 482 of 1998 which is pending before the District Court, Nagpur. Said Sitaram Khobragade or his legal heirs i.e. defendants have no right/share in suit property. They failed to vacate despite notice served on 22.4.2006. According to defendants, sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is void as hit by doctrine of 'lis pendense'. The trial Court found favour with the defendant and recorded finding that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was hit by doctrine of 'lis pendense' while disbelieving the plaintiff's case, dismissed the suit. 4. Learned Advocate for appellant submitted that as on the date of Special Civil Suit No. 575/2006 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, RCS No. 902/1997 as well as appeal being RCA No. 482 /1998 therefrom were not pending. RCS No. 902/1997 was dismissed and RCA No. 482/1998 was also dismissed. The claim of adverse possession set up by the respondent was negatived and, therefore, there was no impediment for transfer in favour of the Plaintiff-appellant as no lis was pending. Therefore, trial Court ought to have decreed the Special Civil Suit No. 575/2006. RCS No. 902/1997 was dismissed and RCA No. 482/1998 was also dismissed. The claim of adverse possession set up by the respondent was negatived and, therefore, there was no impediment for transfer in favour of the Plaintiff-appellant as no lis was pending. Therefore, trial Court ought to have decreed the Special Civil Suit No. 575/2006. Learned Advocate further submitted the trial Court ought to have understood the legal effect of the transfer pendente lite, that it would be subject to decree in pending legal proceedings and, as such, as on 25.9.2008 when Special Civil Suit No. No. 575 of 2006 was decided nothing was pending as RCS No. 902/ 1997 and RCA No. 482/1998 preferred therefrom, were also dismissed. 5. According to learned Advocate for respondents-seller Mahagu's wife had instituted Special Civil Suit No.343/ 2009 to set aside the sale. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-in-reply, submitted that subsequently instituted suit may be as a result of collusion between present occupier and legal representative of ex-lease holder. He made a reference to Amit Kumar Shaw & another vs. Farida Khatoon: ( 2005 ) 11 SCC 403, to argue that the Apex Court has explained the nature, scope and applicability of the doctrine of lis pendense. The requirements are : (i) There must be suit or proceeding pending in a court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) The suit must not be collusive; (iii) The litigation must be one in which right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question; (iv) Transfer of suit property by a party to a suit; (vi) Such transfer must affect the rights of other party that may ultimately accrue under decree. 7. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 embodies a doctrine that any transfer of the suit property pending the hearing and disposal of the suit would be subject to the decree/judgment that may be passed in the suit. Thus, any suit property while suit (not a collusive suit) is pending in a Court of law cannot be transferred unless the court concerned has permitted the transfer pendente lite. The Court while granting permission may authorize transfer pending the suit upon such terms as it may deem just. 8. Thus, any suit property while suit (not a collusive suit) is pending in a Court of law cannot be transferred unless the court concerned has permitted the transfer pendente lite. The Court while granting permission may authorize transfer pending the suit upon such terms as it may deem just. 8. Looking into submissions at the Bar and legal position, I think that submissions on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant are convincing as she claimed title under a registered sale deed ( which was though subject to decree in pending suit ) cannot be considered as altogether void. Rights of the transferee would depend upon result of pending legal proceedings /or suit in respect of the suit property. In the present case when Special Civil Suit No. 575 /2006 was decided by the trial Court, no legal proceedings in respect of the suit property was pending. The trial Court also failed to notice that the claim of adverse possession in a pending proceeding on the date of the institution of the suit was based upon permissive possession which can never be termed as adverse possession. Even otherwise, the effect of lis pendense is not to annul the conveyance but only to make it subservient to rights of the parties to litigation. The evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses in the trial Court went unchallenged as the suit had proceeded further exparte against the defendants. Under these circumstances, possession ought to have followed the title which vested in the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 17.8.1998 and her name was also entered in the record of NIT Nagpur as owner of suit plot pursuant thereto. The trial Court, therefore, was in error in not passing decree in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, therefore, the plaintiff has satisfactorily proved her title to the suit plot and is entitled to recovery of possession thereof from the respondents. Hence the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 575 /2006 by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge S.D. Nagpur is set aside. There shall be inquiry into mesne profits from the date of the suit till the plaintiff recovers actual physical possession of the suit plot.