ORDER S.K. Gangele, J.—The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 18-A/82. The appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. She pleaded that she is the owner of the suit house. She purchased the aforesaid accommodation from defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dated 19.10.1984. Thereafter, she had received possession of the suit house. The defendant No. 5 filed a suit against defendant No. 4 and on the basis of compromise between the parties, a decree was obtained in favour of Mango Bai. When the defendants filed an execution case then cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit. The defendants No. 1 to 4 were proceeded ex-parte. The defendant No. 5 in his written statement denied the pleading of the plaint. She pleaded that she got a right of ownership in a decree of suit accommodation, hence, the suit is not maintainable. 3. The trial Court, after appreciation of documentary and oral evidence, has held that the plaintiff failed to prove the fact that she is the owner of the suit house. The judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 18-A/82 dated 20-12-1985 is binding on the plaintiff. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Plaintiff filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree that has also been dismissed. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that both the courts below have committed an error of law in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and plaintiff did not get a right of ownership on the suit accommodation. He further submitted that the plaintiff/appellant is a bona fide purchaser. Her rights have been protected in accordance with Sections 44 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that Smt. Mango Bai filed a suit, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 18-A/82. The suit was decreed and the preliminary decree of partition was passed. Thereafter, the parties entered into a compromise and the suit accommodation came under the ownership of Smt. Mango Bai, defendant No. 5. 5. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that Smt. Mango Bai filed a suit, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 18-A/82. The suit was decreed and the preliminary decree of partition was passed. Thereafter, the parties entered into a compromise and the suit accommodation came under the ownership of Smt. Mango Bai, defendant No. 5. The plaintiff herself admitted the fact that Mango Bai filed a suit for partition against the defendants No. 1 to 4 and in that partition a decree was passed and thereafter on the basis of compromise between the parties, Mango Bai became owner of the house. 6. The plaintiff Chandrawati Devi further deposed that she purchased the house by registered sale deed dated 19.10.1984 from Premlal @ Popa Kachhi and she had a right to purchase the aforesaid house. 7. From the evidence of plaintiff herself and the facts of the case, it is clear that plaintiff purchased the suit accommodation when a partition suit was pending before the Civil Court. It was her duty to find out that whether any litigation was pending before the Court or not in regard to the same property. In pursuance to the judgment and decree passed in the civil suit, the defendant No. 4 became owner of the suit house. If any judgment and decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff in the present proceedings then it would mean that the earlier judgment and decree passed by the competent Court became redundant and void. The plaintiff has not prayed a relief that the judgment and decree passed in earlier civil suit be declared null and void. The plaintiff neither filed an independent appeal nor an intervention application against the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit. 8. The plaintiff has not prayed a relief that the judgment and decree passed in earlier civil suit be declared null and void. The plaintiff neither filed an independent appeal nor an intervention application against the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit. 8. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 prescribes provision in regard to transfer of property pending suit relating thereto, which reads as under: "During the 1[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 proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly 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" In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the plaintiff cannot acquire any right on the basis of the sale deed. Both the courts have rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 9. The learned senior counsel relied on Section 44 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 44 is in regard to transfer by one co-owner and Section 55 is in regard to liability of buyer and seller. However, in the present case, a provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would be applicable. 10. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law involves for determination in this appeal. I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed