JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, by, the aggrieved plaintiff, against the verdict, of, dismissal, made, upon, Civil suit No. 3-2/48-99, hence, by the learned District Judge, Kullu. Through, the, impugned verdict, the learned trial Court, had, after returning findings adversarial, vis-a-vis, issue No. 1, and, appertaining, to, the plaintiff being, in, possession, of, the suit land, (a) and also, after his returning findings adversarial, to, the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, his claim, qua his becoming bonafide purchaser for value, and, for consideration vis-a-vis, the suit land, through, a registered deed of conveyance, made qua him by one, Kamlesh Kumari, co-defendant No. 2, (b) and, also after his returning findings against the defendant, vis-a-vis, his contention, qua his becoming not dis-possessed in pursuance, to, execution being made, vis-a-vis, the apt conclusive, and, binding verdict, made, upon RFA No. 355 of 1992, ( c) hence proceeded to decline, to, the plaintiffs, the, espoused decrees, for, declaration, and, also the alternative, thereto decree for, a recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,65,000/-. The afore returned findings hence adversarial, to, the plaintiff, rather becoming returned, and upon, the afore factum probandum, has caused agitation, in the plaintiff, and, hence has led him, to, institute, the, instant appeal, against the verdict of dismissal, pronounced upon, civil suit No. 3-02/48-99, by the learned trial Judge. 2. Even though, the execution of sale deed, borne in Ext. PW6/A, becomes proven, to be, validly executed, (i) however, the, valid bestowments, of, title, there through, upon the plaintiff, and, as derived from the vendor thereof, and, arrayed, extantly as, co-defendant No. 2, latter whereof, had derived title, un-controvertedly, during, the pendency of RFA No. 355 of 1992, from one Sanjeev Kumar Dogra, arrayed, hence in the instant suit, as co-defendant No. 3, rather becomes, the, ire adjudicatory contest interse the contesting litigants. However, upon, both the afore co-defendant No. 2 Kamlesh Kumari, and, also upon Sanjeev Dogra, becoming evidently un-arrayed, as litigants', either in the array of plaintiffs, or, in the array, of, defendants, in, the afore civil suit bearing No. 63/1983, (a) wherefrom RFA No. 355 of 1992 arose, hence would initially render both, the, afore Kamlesh Kumari, the vendor of the plaintiff, and, also Sanjeev Kumar, the, vendor of the afore Kamlesh Kumari, rather, to, not attract, upon, themselves, either the vitiatory effects, of, the doctrine, of, lis-pendens, (b) nor would de-faciliate them to espouse qua, the, apposite sale deed, becoming validated, on, the principle, of, ostensible ownership. Imperatively, also only, upon, the afore espousal becoming successful, may, likewise also empower the plaintiff, to, contend, that, the sale deed, borne in Ext. PW6/A, and, executed interse him, and, the co-defendant Kamlesh Kumari, also not becoming imbued, with, any stain of invalidity, (c) and, nor it attracting thereons, either, the vitiatory doctrine of lis-pendens, rather his becoming empowered, to, contend, qua infirm findings, becoming, adversially rendered, upon, the issue, appertaining, to his, becoming a bonafide purchaser, for, value vis-a-vis, the suit land. 3. In making the afore ascertainments, a perusal, of, the memo of parties, of, civil suit No. 63 of 1983, wherefrom RFA No. 355 of 1992 arose, and, during pendency whereof, co-defendant No. 2, acquired the title, vis-a-vis, the suit land, from one Sanjeev Dogra, and, thereafter, through Ext. PW6/A, hence the plaintiff, acquired title from co-defendant Kamlesh Kumari (a) rather unveils, qua Sanjeev Kumar Dogra, becoming therein arrayed as co-defendant No. 5, and, the latter becomes also arrayed, in, the instant suit, as codefendant No. 4. Consequently, the afore factum, does, unfold, qua the vendor, of co-defendant No. 2, one Kamlesh Kumari, despite, becoming arrayed, as co-defendant No. 5, in civil suit No. 63/83, his, through a registered deed of conveyance, passing title, vis-a-vis, the suit-land, vis-a-vis, co-defendant No. 2, one Kamlesh Kumari. Consequently, the afore factum, does, unfold, qua the vendor, of co-defendant No. 2, one Kamlesh Kumari, despite, becoming arrayed, as co-defendant No. 5, in civil suit No. 63/83, his, through a registered deed of conveyance, passing title, vis-a-vis, the suit-land, vis-a-vis, co-defendant No. 2, one Kamlesh Kumari. However, even though, un-controvertedly, the, afore registered deed of conveyance, as executed interse one Sanjeev Dogra, and, one Kamlesh Kumari, the latter whereof stands arrayed, in, the instant suit, as co-defendant No. 2, is, made, during, the pendency of RFA No. 355 of 1992, ( c) however, the afore lis-pendens execution, of, the afore registered deed, of, conveyance, would yet not, dis-empower, the co-defendant, Kamlesh Kumari, to, make a valid espousal, qua the afore deed of conveyance, becoming validated, by, the principle of ostensible ownership, (d) and thereafter would also enable, the, plaintiff to make, a, valid and tenacious espousal, qua, his likewise, being empowered to make a valid dependence, upon, the principle, of, ostensible ownership. Nonetheless, when Kamlesh Kumari, in her written statement, as instituted to the plaint, makes admissions, (e) qua her knowledge, and, awareness, vis-a-vis, the, apt sub-judice litigation, rather engaging defendant No. 3, and defendant Sanjeev, and, also with the latter becoming arrayed, as a litigant, in Civil suit No. 63 of 1983, (iii) thereupon, she cannot be construed, to be an alienee, of, the suit land, rather without notice, of, the thereat subjudice litigation, hence engaging one Sanjeev Kumar, and, co-defendant No. 3, and, also engaging co-defendant No. 1, in the instant suit. The sequel whereof, is, qua the sale deed executed interse co-defendant No. 2, and, co-defendant No. 5 hence attracting thereons, rather the vitiatory principle, of, lispendens, and, hence, the interse them, rather executed registered deed, of, conveyance, becomes invalid, as also obviously any purported succor, drawn from the principle, of, ostensible ownership, rather is undrawable. 5. The sequel whereof, is, qua the sale deed executed interse co-defendant No. 2, and, co-defendant No. 5 hence attracting thereons, rather the vitiatory principle, of, lispendens, and, hence, the interse them, rather executed registered deed, of, conveyance, becomes invalid, as also obviously any purported succor, drawn from the principle, of, ostensible ownership, rather is undrawable. 5. Be that as it may, the plaintiff may, dehors, the, apposite awareness, and, knowledge of co-defendant No. 2, wherethrough she attracts upon herself, the, legally barring principle, of, lis-pendens, to, hence acquire any valid title, vis-a-vis, the suit land, from, one Sanjeev Dogra, and, concomitantly, also becomes estopped, to, espouse the plea, of, ostensible ownership, rather, for, validating, the, afore sale transaction, executed interse them, (i) rather yet, not becomes estopped, to, make valid dependences, upon, the principle, of, ostensible ownership, (ii) however, even his dependence upon, the, principle, of, ostensible ownership, are, legally frail, for the prima-donna reason, qua (iii) admittedly, prior to execution, of, the apposite registered deed of conveyance, his, becoming a lessee, vis-a-vis, the suit land, through, a deed drawn, interse him, and, co-defendants No. 3 to 8, and, deed whereof, is borne in Ext. PW2/A, (iv) besides stands made in his favour, by co-defendants No. 3 to 8, and, hence obviously some amongst, the, latter are also arrayed, as litigants, in, the earlier lis, besides, also in, the extant lis (v) and when the afore admitted factum, is, combined, with, the plaintiff, making an admission, vis-a-vis, a binding, and, conclusive decree, rendered upon RFA No. 355 of 1997, becoming completely executed, vis-a-vis, defendant No. 1, one Keemtu, (vi) thereupon with the vicarious possession, of, the suit land, as may be, held by the plaintiff, also becoming completely annulled, hence on 16.1.1999, and, whereat, the, completest efficacious execution, was made, vis-a-vis, the conclusive, and, binding verdict, rendered, upon, RFA No. 355 of 1992, (vii) wherethrough, after reversing the verdict, rendered, upon, civil suit bearing No. 63 of 1983, hence by, the learned Single Judge, of this Court, hence declining, the, relief, of, possession, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, rather an affirmative decree, of, possession, becoming pronounced, vis-a-vis, co-defendant No. 1, Keemtu, the plaintiff therein. The ensuing legal effects qua the afore possession, of, the plaintiff, as a lessee, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, as existing prior, to the execution of Ext. The ensuing legal effects qua the afore possession, of, the plaintiff, as a lessee, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, as existing prior, to the execution of Ext. PW6/A, is, qua his becoming dis-empowered to, contend, that there, was no litigation, interse them, and, appertaining, to, the suit property, (vii) nor he can contend, that, he was holding no knowledge, qua his vendor, one Kamlesh Kumari, becoming stripped, of, valid title, to, hence validly execute any registered deed of conveyance, rather with him, and, qua, the suit land, (viii) unless evidence, surges forth, that even, after, the execution, of, Ext. PW1/A, hence on 17.1.1998, and, obviously prior, to, the execution of Ext. PW2/A, rather subsequently, on, 28.5.1998, (vii) given his illiteracy, or for lack of the apt elicited information, being purveyed to him, by the Revenue Officer concerned, despite, his visiting, the, offices of the relevant officials concerned, his, not being purveyed, the, elicited information, vis-a-vis, the afore, rather lack of empowerment, of, his vendor, one Kamlesh Kumari, to, execute the apt registered deed of conveyance, qua him. The afore evidence, is, rather amiss, nor also any pleadings nor any evidence becomes adduced by him, hence unfolding, qua all, his lessors, though evidently participating, in, the earlier lis, rather, failing to unfold to him, all, the relevant facts, and, all the relevant information’s appertaining, vis-a-vis, the suit land. Contrarily, however, despite, the defendants concerned, in their respectively, instituted written statements, to the plaint, rearing a contention therein, vis-a-vis, the, influence wielding capacity, of, the plaintiff, and, also his holding immense political clout, and, his evincing rather his readiness, to, take all risks and, with his meteing, no, denial, qua thereto, in his, replication, thereto, (ix) thereupon it is to be concluded qua his acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the afore pleaded contention, enbodied in the written statement, of, the defendant concerned, as, furnished, to, the plaint. The effect thereof, is, qua with the plaintiff, not being, an illiterate person, and, also his despite his acquiring possession, as a lessee, vis-a-vis, the suit property, from persons arrayed, in, RFA No. 355 of 1992, rather prior to execution, of, a registered deed of conveyance, his yet executing a registered deed, of, conveyance, with one Kamlesh Kumari, and qua the suit property, (x) and, also with, the, afore execution occurring, despite, his holding knowledge vis-a-vis, the subjudice thereat, hence litigation, rather engaging his vendor. (xi) Concomitantly, thereupon his being baulked from rearing, the, apposite validating plea, of, ostensible ownership. The sequelling conclusion therefrom, is, qua with his also admitting his becoming ousted, from, possession, of, the suit property, on 16.1.1999, in, pursuance, to, the completest execution, of, a binding verdict made, upon RFA No. 355 of 1992, and when the afore date, of, his hence becoming dispossessed, from, the suit property, is, hence, the, culminating effect, of, the afore execution petition filed, before, the learned executing Court. Furthermore, thereupon when the verdict, qua the defendant No. 1, in, the afore civil suit, became rendered, on, 17.2.1999, and when thereafter, it is to be concluded, qua it becoming put immediately, to, its promptest execution, by co-defendant No. 1, hence, before the learned executing Court concerned, (xii) and, when the possession, of the suit property, as acquired, by the plaintiff, hence occurred, during the pendency, of, the apposite execution petition, before, the learned executing Court concerned, and, when the judgment debtors concerned, are, to be inferred to receive notice, of, the execution petition, and, also are inferred, to, thereafter rear objections, vis-a-vis, the commencement, of, the apt execution, through, the, filing, of, the apposite execution petition, (xiii) thereupon, it was imperative, for, the plaintiff to prove, that, he remained un-awakened, hence by the judgment debtors concerned, vis-a-vis, the commencement, of, the apt execution petition, vis-a-vis, the extant suit khasra Nos, for, there through hence, the DH seeking the completest execution, of, the binding verdict made, upon, RFA No. 355 of 1992. Also, he was enjoined to place on record, the objections, reared thereto, rather by the judgment debtor, with a plea therein qua there occurring no echoings therein vis-a-vis, his holding physical possession, of, the suit land, for, hence belying, the, evident factum vis-a-vis, the completest possession, thereof becoming evidently gained, obviously, during, the pendency of the execution petition, rather before the learned executing court concerned. However, all the afore endeavours remained un-recoursed, and thereupon, it is to be concluded, that, the plaintiff, had, prior to the afore deed, of, conveyance, becoming registered, hence knowledge, vis-a-vis, pendency, of, the execution petition, arising, from the verdict made, vis-a-vis, Keemtu, upon, the afore Regular Second Appeal, (xiv)and with the sale deed becoming executed subsequent thereto, hence he is, barred, from validating it especially, through his depending, upon, the, principle, of, ostensible ownership. 6. 6. Be that as it may, even declining, of, the alternative relief, of, mandatory relief, to the plaintiff, hence by the learned trial Judge, is, apt and befitting, as it stood anvilled, upon, Ext. PW2/A, and, also when the afore exhibit is made between the plaintiff, and, the defendants No. 2 to 7, whereas, he derived title, through, exhibit PW6/A, only, from co-defendant No. 2, (i) thereupon with his claiming pecuniary damages solitarily, from the plaintiff, is, hence a feeble attempt, besides when no cogent evidence, qua therewith exists on record, and, vis-a-vis, the exact amount, liquidated, by him, in pursuance to drawn Ext. PW2/A, thereupon, also the declining, of, the espoused monetary decree, in, the alternative, to, the plaintiff, is, meritworthy. CMP No. 2227 of 2016 7. The leave is declined, in respect, of, the strived to be adduced hence additional documentary evidence, theirs being neither just nor essential, for, resting the controversy. Predominantly, also when the judgments qua wherewith, the leave, is strived, for, theirs being adduced into evidence, are not interse, the, litigating parties, in, the extant lis, (a) nor when the suit khasra Nos engaged, in the judgments qua wherewith, the leave is strived, are appertaining, vis-a-vis, the extant suit khasra Nos., (b) nor when the acquisition of title by the predecessors, of, the three defendants, in the instant suit, is, not shown, to become derived, from one Shobhi Devi, the general power of attorney, one Gairu, (c) rather when the lis engaging the litigating parties, hereat, is, confined, to, applicability, of, the doctrine, of, lis pendens, or, applicability vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, the, doctrine of ostensible ownership, and, when, for the reasons assigned, in, the verdict, made by this Court, it has dispelled the propagations, qua therewith, made by the plaintiff, thereupon, the instant application is dismissed. RFA No. 382 of 2005. 8. There is no merit in the appeal, and the same is dismissed. The Impugned verdict, is, maintained and affirmed. The records be sent back forthwith. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.